Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Drax B Power Station

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Power whether he has reached a decision on the method of firing Drax B Power Station; and whether he will give special consideration to the importance of Yorkshire coal in this enterprise.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Roy Mason): The Central Electricity Generating Board already has statutory consent far a coal-fired extension to the station being built at Drax but it is not in its current capital development programme. The source of coal for power stations is a matter for agreement between the Generating Board and the National Coal Board.

Mr. Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole of the Yorkshire coalfield is awaiting a decision and action on Drax B and that it will do much to allay the fears and suspicions there for the future if the knowledge is given generally throughout the coalfield that the future is secure?

Mr. Mason: I cannot give that assurance at the moment. The first stage of Drax 1 will not be complete until 1973. As regards the extension, which is really Drax 2, the start on that will depend on the demand for electricity at the time and the growth of competing fuels.

Mr. Alison: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, if coal is used at Drax, it will be warmly welcomed in Yorkshire, but will give rise to serious, problems of ash disposal?

Could he assure us that no ash which results will be dumped near residential property?

Mr. Mason: I am aware of the interest in the first question. As regards ash disposal, my hon. Friend will be answering a later Question on that in due course.

National Coal Board (Farmland)

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Power if he is aware of the anomalies in different restrictive covenants and differing rent standards existing in connection with farmland held by the National Coal Board; and if he will introduce legislation to remove these anomalies.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The rents and conditions of tenure of National Coal Board farms are matters for the Board as managers of the industry. I see no reason to intervene.

Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply is extremely disappointing in view of the anomalies throughout the country, particularly in Northumberland, where one large tenant, Northumbria Farms Ltd., rents land at about 25s. an acre, while smaller farmers have to pay much more? Is he not aware that it is time these anomalies were ironed out?

Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend will appreciate that, in matters like this, tenancy agreements relating particularly to rents will depend largely on the negotiations over variations in the quality of land. If it is felt that there are particular points on which the Ministry might refer matters to the N.C.B. for consideration, we shall be only too glad to receive details.

Power Stations and Gasworks (Coal Consumption)

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Power if he will undertake to examine the possibilities available of increasing the amount of coal to be used by the Central Electricity Generating Board in power stations throughout the country in order to slow down the contraction of the mining industry in areas of high unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: Coal consumption in power stations and gas works has already been increased by about 6 million tons a year at a cost of nearly £10 million and these industries together take about half of coal output—81 million tons.

Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although this increase in consumption of coal for electricity and gas undertakings is very welcome, there is still room for about another £10 million to be consumed in this way? Will he undertake to make a study of this so as to help the areas of high unemployment in our coalfields?

Mr. Mason: My mind is always open to constructive ideas, but I should warn my hon. Friend that the present subsidy in extra coal burned at power staions is very expensive: £45 million is the cost now for the increase in coal burned at power stations and gasworks, but this alone keeps 15,000 jobs open in the coal fields.

Mr. Ridley: Would the Minister agree that the extra coal take should be based only on the coal being properly priced? Is he aware that the Treasury has been giving anxious consideration to the pricing policies of the National Coal Board for a long time? When will something be done about the matter?

Mr. Mason: Consideration by Ministers of investment in industrial machinery sometimes should be tempered with compassion and understanding because of the effect on men's lives.

Riddochhill Colliery, West Lothian

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had with the National Coal Board regarding the closure of Riddochhill Colliery, West Lothian; and if he will make a state ment.

Mr. Freeson: Individual colliery closures are a matter for the National Coal Board, but I was informed by the Board that Riddochhill Colliery would close on 7th December.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it satisfactory that face workers should be expected to take up alternative employment at 80 per cent. of their previous earnings?

Mr. Freeson: That is a matter for the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that every pit closure means that men leave the mining industry for good? That has happened in this instance. Does he not think that that is a reason why there should be a complete review of the pit closure policy?

Mr. Freeson: I would not base any decision on one decision of this kind. As a matter of information, there are 408 men at the colliery at present and alternative work within daily travelling distance is being offered to 299 of them.

Mineworkers (Redundancy Payments)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Power what is the practice of his Department regarding the length of time which journeys to alternative work at collieries must take before a worker qualifies for compensation under the Redundancy Payments Act as being unable to find alternative employment.

Mr. Freeson: The suitability of the alternative employment offered to workers at closing collieries is for the National Coal Board in the first instance, not the Department. Any worker who thinks he has been wrongly refused a redundancy payment may ask for his case to go to an industrial tribunal.

Mr. Dalyell: In general terms, is travelling time of over an hour each way considered to be satisfactory in terms of the Redundancy Payments Act?

Mr. Freeson: I must again tell my hon. Friend that this is not a matter for my Department. Questions of redundancy payment are dealt with by the Department of Employment and Productivity.

Miss Herbison: Surely my hon. Friend is aware that when these jobs are offered, some over 20 miles away, I understand, if the men do not accept them they do not receive redundancy pay? Does he not realise that this is a very serious matter in an area where there is so little alternative work? A considerable number of men, over 200, at Riddochhill Colliery and Kingshill No. 2 have no work at all.

Mr. Freeson: I appreciate the point that is being made by my hon. Friend, but the fact remains that any question of appeal against a decision considered to be wrong regarding a redundancy payment is not for the Ministry of Power, it is for the industrial tribunals within the purview of the Department of Employment and Productivity.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: asked the Minister of Power whether the payment arrears have now been cleared on the Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Scheme) Order 1968; and on what basis, since the payments to date have been a little over £1⅓ million, some £28 million has been estimated as being the total cost to the Exchequer between 18th July, 1967 and 18th July, 1971.

Mr. Freeson: Arrears accumulated by the time payments began in August have now been cleared, apart from a few cases where rr.en have not replied to letters. Expenditure will rise steeply as men enter their second year of redundancy and become entitled to an increase in Scheme benefit equivalent to exhausted flat rate unemployment benefit.

Mr. Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is growing concern, in areas where pits have closed since this Order was introduced, about the way in which it has been applied by the Board, which has shown anything but the humane and generous attitude envisaged by this House?

Mr. Freeson: I am not aware that there is any general feeling of anxiety on that score. My impression is that the Scheme is working well. But, as I have said, machinery for appeals is being set up, and I believe that there is a later Question on the Order Paper in this connection.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Power when he estimates local committees will come into operation to examine disputed applications for redundancy payments by coal miners; and what instructions the committees will have with regard to dealing with borderline cases.

Mr. Freeson: The reconstituted local committees will operate from 1st January, 1969. They will consider cases according to the provisions of the Redundant Mineworkers' (Payments Scheme) Order,

1968, and submit their findings to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Cronin: Will my hon. Friend make sure that these Committees deal with borderline cases not only on the strict basis of this Order but preferably with some degree of liberality, because this will have an important effect on the morale of the industry generally

Mr. Freeson: We have considered it best, in co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, to establish the use of the personnel of the industrial tribunals to examine and advise on difficult cases which are not settled by local committees, and, ultimately, there can be references to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Owen: Will my hon. Friend tell us the composition of these committees and when they will really get to work? At the moment, January seems to be irrelevant to the problems arising in the coalfields.

Mr. Freeson: I cannot, off the cuff, give the actual membership of these committees. But 1st January is not too far distant; it is only a matter of weeks now. I think that the committees will be able to handle the problem.

Smokeless Fuels

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Power what are the existing stocks of smokeless fuels; and if he will tabulate the current stocks of each type and in total, stating where they are located, comparing the position with this time last year, and indicating the current rates of production and consumption of each and in total.

Mr. Freeson: Latest estimates of stocks of solid smokless fuel suitable for domestic use are about 2 million tons, compared with 2· 2 million tons at the corresponding period last year. The annual rate of supply and demand of these fuels is about 8 million tons generally. The availability of particular grades in particular places is a matter for the trade.

Mr. Osborn: What is the position likely to be this winter with stocks of anthracite nut and Phurnacite? Will the Parliamentary Secretary comment on the fact that the increasing use of natural gas will reduce the output from gas


works of cheap gas coke, and say what will be the position in years to come?

Mr. Freeson: In reply to the last part of the Question, gas coke will eventually go out of existence. This will take some time. The trade is fully aware of this, and there is contact between the gas industry, the retailers and the distributors on the matter. With regard to the coming winter, while there was serious anxiety in some parts of the country in the South about two months ago, it seems, on the latest information, that the matter will be resolved, so that there will not be overall difficulties during the coming winter.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that there is still great anxiety in many parts of Southern England whether there will be adequate supplies of smokeless fuel this winter? Will the Minister tell us what representation he has had on this point from the main coal distributors in the area?

Mr. Freeson: In terms of representations, in the plural, the answer is none, but in terms of contact with particular distributors the Department has been in touch with them as well as with the National Coal Board, and it is on the basis of these discussions and the information we have obtained during the last two months that I was able to make the statement which I made a few moments ago about the anxieties which were threatened for this winter not being realised. There will be supplies adequate for the time being.

Sir J. Eden: Since the Minister himself has said that there is likely to be a slight shortage this winter, what will be the effect of this on schools and hospitals in London and the South-East? Surely the run-down in gas coke should have been foreseen and planned for a much longer time ago.

Mr. Freeson: On the latter point, there is notification by the gas industry which varies from one Board to another as the process of switching over from the coal supplied gas to natural gas takes place in different parts of the country. There has been contact between the gas industry on the one hand and the trade on the other. There is no reason to believe that schools and hospitals in the South will run short of supplies. What I said

earlier was not that there will be an overall shortage, but that there could be shortages of particular fuels which may be made up by supplies from other sources.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long answers mean fewer Questions.

Output

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: asked the Minister of Power what is the current output of National Coal Board deep-mined coal, opencast coal and licensed mines; and how this compares with respective outputs in 1967, 1966 and 1965.

Mr. Mason: Deep-mined coal output in the first 47 weeks of 1965 was 161 million tons; in the same period in 1966 it was 149 million tons; in 1967 146 million tons, and in 1968 140 million tons. Coal output from licensed mines fell from 1· 2 million tons in 1965 to 09 million tons in 1968. The output of opencast coal declined from 6· 7 million tons in 1965 to 6· 2 million tons in 1968.

Mr. Davies: Can my right hon. Friend say how those figures compare with productivity and stocks over the same years?

Mr. Mason: In 1965, productivity was 35· 9 cwts output per man shift. In November, 1968, it was 44· 97 cwts., which represents an excellent increase in productivity of 9 per cent. But stocks in 1965 were 21· 5 million tons, and last November they were 29 million tons. The problem, therefore, obviously is a marketing and sales one.

Mr. Speed: Can the Minister confirm that it is still his current policy that only in very exceptional circumstances will he authorise new opencast sites?

Mr. Mason: I will only authorise new opencast sites if they are not in conflict with deep-mined coal production. That applies especially to some anthracite opencast sites that I might authorise.

Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while it is right to give attention to the production of coal, it may be that too little attention has been given to the needs of the distributive industry? Is this not a case for the I.R.C., the Industrial Investment Corporation and all the other bodies of Government to look at, giving special attention to distribution


costs rather than production costs of the industry?

Mr. Mason: That is an interesting point, but it does not arise out of the original Question.

Pit Closures

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Power, following his review of trends in coal, what plans he has for the deferment of pit closures over the winter months.

Mr. Mason: All closures proposed by the National Coal Board are being examined against the background of local employment prospects, and where necessary the Government will ask the Board to defer closures.

Sir J. Eden: Can the Minister say what progress has been made with retraining and alternative employment opportunities for those areas where pits have already been closed?

Mr. Mason: That is not a matter for me. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Board of Trade, the Department of Employment and Productivity and the Department of Economic Affairs have jointly been working on special training schemes for miners, and they have been successful.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency, the National Coal Board is advertising for miners, and it is hardly likely to get them from West Bournemouth? In view of the fact that there is so much uncertainty about pit closures, should he not call a halt so that there might be some degree of rationalisation to keep in mind the future of manpower?

Mr. Mason: I am aware of the problems of manpower, but I could not call a halt to all pit closures. Some have run out of coal. Others, as a result of bad geological conditions, are uneconomic. Hope springs eternal in my hon. Friend's breast if he imagines that we can get some Southerners to move to Scotland.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Power what proposals he has received from the National Coal Board for pit closures in the South Derbyshire coal fields.

Mr. Mason: Individual colliery closures E.re a matter for the National

Coal Board, in consultation with the Unions concerned. I know of no plans for the closure of any of the collieries in the South Derbyshire and Leicester-shire coalfields, but I have been informed that the results at Cadley Hill have been such as to place its future in jeopardy.

Mr. Cronin: Could my right hon. Friend give an assurance as far as possible that there will be no further closures in the South Derbyshire area? Would he bear in mind that South Derbyshire miners have acheved higher productivity despite great difficulties, and what is now required is a period of stability to maintain morale in their productive effort?

Mr. Mason: As I have said, I am not aware of pending closures there. But I can reiterate what my hon. Friend has said. This part of the British coalfield has done extremely well, and productivity has been very good.

Production target

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Minister of Power when he expects to announce an increase in the coal production target for 1975.

Mr. Mason: Production in 1975 will depend on demand which will in turn depend on the N.C.B.'s success in reducing costs and increasing productivity.

Mr. Hunter: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that in a recent statement he said that in 1975 the coal industry would be half as big again as nuclear power and natural gas put together? Does he agree that to get a proper picture of the coal industry in 1975 we should know what part oil is to play?

Mr. Mason: Yes, but we have to rely on estimates of demand. As I indicated earlier, demand for coal is falling. Therefore, the problem is one of marketing and sales.

Oral Answers to Questions — POWER

Domestic Appliances (Advertisement and Sales Promotion)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Power what figures are available of the amounts spent in recent years by the Electricity Boards and Council, Gas Board and Council, and National


Coal Board, on advertising and the general sales promotion for heating, lighting, and cooking appliances; and if he will take steps to reduce wasteful competition and consider introducing some integration between the selling sides of these organisations.

Mr. Freeson: Following a request by my right hon. Friend's predecessor the industries held their promotional expenditure in 1966–67 within a limit of £3 million each, and this restraint was continued in 1967–68. We are also considering ways of improving co-operation between the industries.

Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend not accept that co-operation in this matter requires some urgency, since the present competitive set-up is costing the public money? Would he not agree that one of the most stupid aspects of private enterprise is the unnecessary competition between substitutable products, sometimes made by the same company?

Mr. Freeson: No, I would not accept that generally. There is a large area of valuable competition between the nationalised industries coming within my Department's purview which has had a good impact on the results to the consumer over past years. I agree, however, that there are areas in which there could be valuable co-operation for the future; we are looking at this.

Gas and Electricity Meters (Reading)

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Minister of Power if he will give an estimate of the probable fiancial savings, where appropriate, from the use of one meter reader for both gas and electricity; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Power whether he will give a general direction to the Gas and Electricity Boards to co-operate in the reading of meters for the convenience of consumers and in the interests of economy.

Mr. Freeson: No useful estimate of savings can be made until the results of the current feasibility studies have been assessed. If these show that worth-while savings are possible, field trials will be

necessary to determine economies and other benefits to the industries and consumers. A general direction would not therefore be appropriate.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Such feasibility studies should have been conducted a long time ago. Should not the convenience of the consumer, apart from the question of finance, be taken into account? Could my hon. Friend give some of the savings to the meter readers as a result of increased productivity? Is it not about time that the gas and electricity undertakings got together on this matter?

Mr. Freeson: The answer to the number of points put by my hon. Friend lies in the last point. In fact, the industries have got together in establishing these joint studies. It may well be that they should have been started a long time ago, but my hon. Friend will recall that under the previous Administration there was a special committee of inquiry which went into precisely this matter about 10 years ago which came down against such techniques. It is in the last year or so that the feasibility studies have been arranged jointly between two boards in different parts of the country.

Mr. Dance: I tabled a similar Question in 1966. Why has it taken so long to come to a decision?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. The decision was made some time ago. I do not recall offhand his Question in 1966 because I was not in this post at that time. But I know that a decision was taken in the last 12 months for such feasibility studies to be undertaken. They have proceeded. They are now being assessed, and on the basis of that assessment we shall be able to see whether field trials can be undertaken in the areas concerned.

Mr. Dance: Why take so long?

Irish Sea (Oil and Natural Gas)

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the progress made in the exploration for oil and natural gas in the Irish Sea; and what agreements similar to that in existence between countries adjoining the North Sea are planned between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Mason: Several geographical surveys have been carried out and a geological bore-hole to test strata is being drilled by the Institute of Geological Science on the shore of Cardigan Bay. The National Coal Board and the Gulf oil company, who are joint licensees of a five block licence between Lancashire and the Isle of Man, have conducted detailed survey work and are now assessing the results. An agreement with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the dividing line is expected in due course.

Mr. Gardner: If any discoveries are made in the Irish Sea, would it not be appropriate to go a little further and consider a joint public enterprise involving this country and the Republic of Ireland to exploit these resources?

Mr. Mason: I suppose that we are always open to suggestions of that kind, but it is early yet because we are only in the initial stages of exploration. The Institute of Geological Science is doing most of it.

Mr. McMaster: What survey has been conducted in the northern part of the Irish Sea and what discussions have taken place with the Government of Northern Ireland, which has a considerable joint interest in this project?

Mr. Mason: As I indicated, an agreement with the Government of the Republic of Ireland is expected in due course. Concerning exploration in the Irish Sea, in 1967 a seismic survey between the coast of Lancashire and Cumberland and the Isle of Man took place. Another survey of the southern Irish Sea has taken place this year. More work is planned for early next year by the Institute of Geological Science.

Steel (Prices)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Power what proposals have now been put to him by the British Steel Corporation for a revision of their prices; and if he will make a statement.

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement concerning his discussions with the British Steel Corporation on the revision of prices.

Mr. Mason: I have just received the conclusions of the Corporation's major

price review, which include proposals for a major price increase. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and I are referring them to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what effect this will have on industry's costs generally, and will he give an assurance that he will not approve any major price review which will result in the steel industry, like other nationalised industries, charging considerably more for its products in Scotland, bearing in mind the catastrophic effect which this would have on shipbuilding and heavy engineering in Scotland?

Mr. Mason: In the case of an industry whose end product contained about 25 per cent. of steel, the increase would be about 2 per cent.

Earl of Dalkeith: Would the Minister give an undertaking that he will personally ensure that the industrial situation in Scotland is not made worse by these price increases and that there will be no repetition of the tragic closure of the steel plant in my constituency which has shaken everyone's faith in the Govern ment?

Mr. Mason: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman's criticisms. Obviously he does not keep abreast of affairs. In the past two years, the British Steel Corporation has announced five new plants in Scotland alone.

Sir K. Joseph: Are we to understand from the Minister that the proposed price increase averages about 8 per cent.? Is he aware that private business must consider costs as well as prices? When will the House be hearing proposals for rationalisation, which has been given as the main reason for nationalising the steel industry?

Mr. Mason: The average increase is just over 7 per cent.—7· 3 per cent., if I remember aright. I expect to receive the further development proposals of the British Steel Corporation at the beginning of next year.

Mr. James Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a very serious recession in steel construction work in Scotland? Bearing in mind the differentials which prevail in other


nationalised industries, will he ensure that the price in Scotland is the same as in the South?

Mr. Mason: I cannot give that assurance, and I would not want to tie the National Board for Prices and Incomes when it makes an inquiry into this matter.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

British Steel Corporation

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Power what is the expected capital expenditure by the British Steel Corporation for the current year; and how this compares with the corresponding figures for last year.

Mr. Mason: As I said in my reply on 15th July, 1968 [Vol. 768, c. 181] the programme which I had approved provided for capital expenditure this year up to £100 million. At this stage I cannot predict the exact outturn. The British Steel Corporation's capital expenditure in the eight months from vesting date to March, 1968, was £54 million.

Mr. Biffen: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if this somewhat low figure has been influenced by the low level of retained earnings of the British Steel Corporation and if in his view this points to the commercial realism of allowing the Steel Corporation to increase its prices?

Mr. Mason: No, I was referring to the £54 million which was for eight months of 1968. This represented an annual rate of about £81 million, and it is with that in mind that the approval of up to £100 million in 1968–69 should be compared.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend say when further information is likely to be given on the longer-term capital programme for the steel industry?

Mr. Mason: Yes, my hon. Friend should await the answer to the next Question.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Power if he will publish the estimated capital requirements of the British Steel Corporation for the period 1969 to 1975

and indicate the extent to which such capital will increase new capacity and modernise existing capacity, respectively.

Mr. Mason: The Corporation has not yet submitted to me a capital development programme covering this period. The nature of its expenditure will be determined in the light of its plans for long-term development, work on which is still in progress.

Mr. Biffen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House that he will encourage and sustain the British Steel Corporation, that in their policy of siting new investment they will be governed by economic considerations and not by politically motivated regional lobbying?

Mr. Mason: Cmnd. 3437, A Review of Economic and Financial Objectives of the Nationalised Industries governs that, and the British Steel Corporation is well aware of it.

Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend compare the advice which he has received this afternoon from the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) with previous advice from hon. Gentlemen opposite and will he say which advice he is most likely to follow?

Mr. Mason: I have already said to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oswestry that Cmnd. Paper 3437 on financial objectives governs the operation of the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Power how many persons are employed in the headquarters of the British Steel Corporation in London.

Mr. Freeson: This is a matter for the Corporation but I am advised by the B.S.C. that it has reduced headquarters staff by about 350.

Mr. Taylor: Is it not madness for a Government that advertises on the London Underground that firms should move outside London, to concentrate so much decision making there? Will it not be the final insult to Scotland if this should impose a higher price for steel in Scotland for the first time since the war?

Mr. Freeson: I do not think the hon. Gentleman listened to the Answer. He


should congratulate the British Steel Corporation on reducing staff since the industry was vested in it last July. He asked a specific question about the number employed. The number now is, I think, 1,370, which is a reduction of 350 during the months since the B.S.C. took over.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that there is a fear of over-centralisation in the steel industry with the gravitation away from Scotland? Can he give an assurance that the Scottish division will retain autonomy and the right to make its own decisions on matters affecting it?

Mr. Freeson: If I may say so, that question is not particularly helpful to the future steel industry. The Question to which I replied was about the number employed at headquarters in London, not whether there was to be a reduction of the steel industry in Scotland of which there is no intention by the industry.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) was asking about ths centralisation of decision-making in the steel industry. Is not this question extremely relevant, and is there not grave concern at the proposals put forward by the British Steel Corporation for centralising affairs in London?

Mr. Freeson: I am unaware of any grave concern, except perhaps among irresponsible hon. Members opposite.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who served on the Committee are fully aware of the circumstances and that we in Scotland recognise that we have to have central Government? On that basis, is he prepared to tell the House that, if any future expansion of the steel industry is to take place, it will be in Scotland?

Mr. Freeson: There is bound to be rationalisation and expansion in various sectors of the industry. We are awaiting the proposals which the Corporation will make to the Government on the matter. But my hon. Friend will be aware of the proposals from within the industry for major expansions in certain parts of Scotland which were announced in the Press recently.

Gas and Electricity Meters (Construction and Testing)

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Power whether he will take steps to amend the relevant statutes governing the construction and testing of gas and electricity meters to bring them within the scope of the weights and measures legislation.

Mr. Freeson: Electricity and gas meters already have effective statutory controls and tests by independent Ministry examiners. The Hodgson Committee on Weights and Measures Legislation considered that a change would not justify the disturbance, because a special category of weights and measures inspectors would be needed. The Molony Committee saw no reason to change the arrangements.

Mr. Gardner: I know that my hon. Friend has a close interest in these matters. Would he not accept that the cost of gas and electricity to the consumer is even more important than the areas of activity already covered by weights and measures inspectors employed by local authorities? Will he not reconsider this, in view of the growth of experience of local authority inspectors?

Mr. Freeson: I do not think that the growth of experience of local authority inspectors would meet this point. They would need special training. I should have thought that the expansion of consumer protection on the part of local councils would have stretched the work of the weights and measures inspectors quite enough without adding further to their load.

Fuel Supplies (North Sea Gas and Nuclear Power)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Power if he still estimates that in 1975 North Sea gas and nuclear power will be making the contribution to fuel supplies published in the White Paper last November.

Mr. Freeson: I have nothing to add at this stage to the information published in the White Paper on Fuel Policy (Cmnd. 3438) and the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) on 12th March.—[Vol. 760, c. 247.]

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister is on record as having made the statement that by 1975 there will be only 3,000 million cubic feet of gas landed per day? This is a difference of 1,000 million cubic feet compared with the White Paper. Furthermore, nuclear power is 18 months behind schedule. Does my hon. Friend think that there will be an opportunity, as we are talking about 12½ million tons, to make a statement to the miners and their sons to give them some confidence to remain in the mining industry?

Mr. Freeson: The statement to which my hon. Friend has referred has not, to my knowledge, been made by my right hon. Friend. The impact of natural gas is more likely to be felt by the oil industry than the coal industry. This has been said before, and I repeat it again today.

Mr. Lane: Would not this be a suitable subject for discussion by a Select Committee of this House? Will the Minister give his support to the proposal by the Select Committee on Science and Technology that there should now be established a Select Committee on Energy Policy?

Mr. Freeson: This matter is being dealt with by correspondence between my right hon. Friend and the Chairman of the Committee concerned. I must leave it with him.

Fuel Policy (Working Parties)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Minister of Power when he expects to announce the conclusions of the working parties set up as a result of his Sunningdale Conference with the chairmen of the nationalised fuel industries.

Mr. Mason: The work put in hand at Sunningdale is part of the normal continuing work on energy problems undertaken jointly by my Department and the industries. I will inform the House at once if this work should lead to any change in policy.

Mr. Hunter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many employees of the National Coal Board at all levels are anxious to get some report of this conference? Will he facilitate the report to enable this to be done?

Mr. Mason: I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend says. I am anxious that the Coal Board should keep abreast of my studies in this respect and its co-operation is required to the full.

Mr. Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in June this year he said that he was taking his first retrospective look at the fuel policy? To many people it appears that these working parties are just further delaying tactics?

Mr. Mason: I will disabuse the hon. Gentleman's mind immediately. A special examination of coal trends is taking place because of our discussions at Sunningdale. It was noticed that the manpower rundown was pretty fast, and we are examining that to see whether it necessitates any change in fuel policy.

Mr. Lubbock: As a year has now elapsed since the White Paper on Fuel Policy of November, 1967, would it not be a good idea to have the estimates updated so that they are carried forward a further year up to 1976? What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had on this matter with the chairmen of the nationalised fuel industries at the recent conference?

Mr. Mason: We have always said that these are estimates, not standing figures of fact. If some of the forecasts do not correlate with the actual outturn, there is no reason why the figures should not be moved. This is why there is a continuing look at fuel policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS

North Sea Gas

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning the exploitation of North Sea gas.

Mr. Mason: 139 exploration and appraisal wells and 35 production wells have been drilled to date. Four major gas fields have been found. Ten fixed production platforms and four undersea pipelines have been laid.

Mr. Campbell: As at least eight new finds have taken place since the White Paper on Fuel Policy was published, when does the Minister expect to be able to announce the new total of reserves; and


were they taken into account at the Sunningdale conference?

Mr. Mason: No. There are several other small discoveries which could turn out to be exploitable, but further evaluations are necessary to establish whether they are a commercial proposition. The reserves so far evaluated in the four gas fields amount to 25 trillion cubic feet.

Sir J. Eden: Would the Minister commenton the fact that the Chairman of Shell recently indicated that the newly agreed price was not sufficient to encourage further exploitation?

Mr. Mason: No agreement has yet been reached on the Leman Bank and Indefatigable fields, but I hope that it will not be long before there is final agreement.

Natural Gas (Supplies)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had with the oil industry and North Sea gas operating companies about the preservation of continuing supplies of natural gas to consumers, in the event of war and undersea attack on the source of normal supplies.

Mr. Mason: The continuity of supplies in the event of war is being studied by the Gas Council, and there are arrangements for regular consultation on defence matters between my Department and the oil industry.

Mr. Osborn: Will the Minister comment on whether or not there have been submarines in the North Sea while drilling has taken place and pipelines have been laid? What would be the situation if wells and pipelines were to be blown up, how long would it take to repair them, what facilities have we for storage of natural gas underground, and what is the security of our supplies?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman is frighteningly pessimistic. There has been one unconfirmed report of an unidentified submarine. The position of the gas pipelines has been published in the technical Press. Everyone who takes an interesl in these matters knows exactly where they are, and there is no secret about them.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my right hon. Frierd take this issue seriously? Is

he not aware that we have coal under our feet and, as we allow pits to go out of production, we have to rely more and more upon fuel from the North Sea, and upon oil from other countries. Therefore if we allow the run-down of production in the mines we shall be in serious trouble in the near future.

Mr. Mason: Yes, I am aware of that, but, as I have said many times in answering previous Questions, I am keeping my eye on the manpower run-down in the coal industry and watching particularly the coal trends.

Mr. Lane: In view of the importance of increasing our insurance against this kind of risk by widening as far as possible the areas of successful search in the North Sea, is the Minister satisfied with the number of rigs at present at work there, since I believe that the number is substantially lower than it was only a year ago?

Mr. Mason: This is noticeable and it is understandable, because it is an exploitation of rig shortage. Once there has been drilling and possibly a scent. an appraisal takes place while the rig moves over to Norwegian waters and carries out drilling there. It is just a sensible use of the rigs.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Electricity Industry (Reorganisation)

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement on the planned reorganisation of the electricity industry.

Mr. Mason: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) on 5th November.—[Vol. 772, c. 41.]

Sir J. Eden: Since the study began 10 months ago, could the Minister not give us an interim statement, and would he, in particular, confirm that he is planning to end the separation of the production and marketing functions?

Mr. Mason: On that latter point, I cannot make any statement because we have not yet come to any conclusions. In any event, it is not true that we started 10 months ago. It was five months ago. I hope to be able to come to some conclusions in the early spring.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable speculation within the electricity supply industry about the names of his advisers in this matter? Could he dispel the air of mystery by publishing those names?

Mr. Mason: I will consider that request, but I did not think that it was necessary, because a number of my officials work with some people both within the industry and without it who have experience of the industry. The area board chairmen have let me know their views, and I have been in touch with the unions about their views. They have submitted memoranda. I do not think that it is necessary to print a list of the advisers responsible.

Second Nuclear Power Station (Sizewell)

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Minister of Power what is the starting date and what are the estimated completion dates, for the building of the second nuclear power station at Sizewell, and the estimated date when the station will generate electricity for the public.

Mr. Mason: I am still considering the Central Electricity Generating Board's application for consent for this station.

Sir H. Harrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the original station was built, is was designed to have a second one there and that this is rather expected, provided it is a sound financial proposition?

Mr. Mason: I have two requests before me for stations, but I have not yet decided where they will be built and what type of fuel will fire them.

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Minister of Power what proposals he has received from the Central Electricity Generating Board for the erecting of new pylons to carry the extra lines for electricity to be generated at the second power station at Sizewell; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeson: None, Sir.

RHODESIAN AFRICANS (COMMONWEALTH TRAINING PROGRAMME)

Mr. Judd: asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has received from Commonwealth Governments for the

establishment of a Commonwealth training programme for Rhodesian Africans at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference; and what action he proposes to take.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The United Kingdom already makes a major contribution to the special Commonwealth Programme for training Rhodesian Africans, which was introduced in July, 1966, in accordance with the decision taken by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at Lagos earlier that year.

Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in this complex situation, to get an increased commitment from the Commonwealth next month for this practical programme to support the principle of African majority rule would be a good thing?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that we took the initiative in the matter in 1966. Since that time we have approved 100 awards to Rhodesian Africans and, in addition, over 100 have been placed in other Commonwealth countries either under the special programme or by other means. This is obviously the kind of co-operation we could discuss at the Commonwealth Conference.

Mr. Thorpe: Since the Government's latest and welcome proposals for helping African education are conditional upon acceptance of the "Fearless" proposals, can the Prime Minister say whether any judgment has been passed on them by the African Nationalist leaders? Indeed, is the Prime Minister satisfied that, from their respective places of imprisonment, they are free to make known their views to Her Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said on the point recently. There is some doubt about the conditions in which, at any rate, one of the African Nationalist leaders is held at present. I do not think that this affects the position concerning our offer on education. The right hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that our proposals for advanced training, which is the subject of the Question, go on regardless of what may happen in Rhodesia.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Mr. Gregory: asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to provide that the British Broadcasting Corporation should be bound by the rules of political objectivity and balance by which the Independent Television Authority is bound under the terms of the Television Act, 1964.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to subject the British Broadcasting Corporation to the same restrictions imposed upon the independent companies by the Television Act, 1964.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. At the time of the renewal of the British Broadcasting Corporation's Royal Charter in 1964, the B.B.C. gave assurances which in effect place it under the same obligation to treat controversial subjects with impartiality as that imposed on the Independent Television Authority by the Television Act, 1964. I think that we must rely on the Chairman and Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation to see that these assurances are fulfilled.

Mr. Gregory: Has the Prime Minister yet received from the Leader of the Opposition any indication about his offer that each should consult and inform the other and exchange views on any pressure or representation made between the two broadcasting authorities?

The Prime Minister: My proposal, made to the right hon. Gentleman publicly, was not that we should consult one another, but that, since it was known that all parties from time to time made complaints, it would be a useful check on the complaints if each national party were to inform the others of complaints that it had made. The answer is, no, I have had no response at all.

Mr. St John-Stevas: Would not this legislation have the double advantage of making it unnecessary for the Prime Minister to continue his campaign to indoctrinate the gnomes of Broadcasting House and also help him to avoid such political blunders as the notorious "£ in your pocket has not been devalued" which he is rumoured to have made?

The Prime Minister: On the first question, there is no such campaign. I said to the House on the last occasion that the circumstances in which in 1966 I felt it right to exercise the inalienable freedom of not going on television if you do not want to were that the B.B.C. was doing deals with the Opposition about election programmes without informing the Government. I thought that was reasonable, and my charge has not been denied since I said it in the House.
Concerning the second statement, I think that this has been fairly adequately ventilated despite the confusion caused by the Leader of the Opposition falsifying the words used. We have now had the further gaiety of the Leader of the Opposition below the Gangway showing his total inability to distinguish between the past tense and the future, between the words "will be" and "has been"—though no one should understand the words "has been" better than he.

Mr. Heath: I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not, apparently, aware of the exchanges which have passed through the usual channels, but we, in writing, have said that we are prepared to accept any public pronouncement about complaints made either to the B.B.C. or the programme authorities and we are prepared to publish them.

The Prime Minister: I am pleased to hear that. I was asked what reply I had had from the right hon. Gentleman. All that I have had is to read in the Press the right hon. Gentleman's briefing that no such offer was ever made. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that this was made publicly on 2nd November, 1965, in HANSARD at columns 874–5. If the right hon. Gentleman has now responded, I shall be delighted to hear the details.

Mr. Heath: I am sorry, but the Prime Minister cannot get away with it like that. Since he raised this across the Floor of the House there has been an exchange of letters between the usual channels of the three parties concerned in which, speaking for my party, we have made it clear that we fully accept the publication of any complaints, and we expect the Government to do the same.

The Prime Minister: We shall certainly be ready to do the same. Having just consulted the usual channels on my side, I am bound to say that they are as mystified as I am at this very welcome news.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Prime Minister aware that since this matter was first raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about 2½ years ago there has been correspondence between the usual channels, and that at my suggestion it has been agreed by the Chief Whips of the Government and the Opposition that all these representations should be published, and is the Prime Minister aware that in default of any formal agreement the Liberal Party has decided to issue to the Press any letters that it sends to the B.B.C. or the Independent Television Authority?

The Prime Minister: I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. So far as we are concerned, the original proposal was made as long ago as November, 1965. I do not know whether that was before or after the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. I have just consulted my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. He will be prepared to look into this. If he has received the letter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—I think I am entitled to ask my right hon. Friend about that. If the letter is there, then certainly a statement will be made to the House.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the Prime Minister aware that there has long been collusion between the Labour and Conservative Parties about the implementation of a fair and balanced policy of party political broadcasts in Wales and in Scotland? Until recently there was an absolute veto on broadcasts by the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, which even now have only four minutes and forty seconds per annum to put their policies before the people of Wales and Scotland.

The Prime Minister: I was concerned in many of these discussions, as any Leader of the Opposition is, until 1964. In those days there was no collusion between any parties to deny reasonable rights to anyone to have freedom of the air. I am certain that in any discussions

between the three parties now there is still no collusion of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Winifred Ewing.

Mrs. Ewing: rose —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a place where minorities are heard. Mrs. Ewing.

Mrs. Ewing: Whatever legislation applies, will the Prime Minister repeat the assurance given by the Secretary of State for Scotland in a recent debate that in 1969 the time ration of minority parties will be reviewed sympathetically, and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is in a position today to say whether the ration of four minutes forty seconds on television and radio will be increased to reflect a balanced political view of the present situation in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter for discussion between the principal parties and the broadcasting authorities. I should like notice of the hon. Lady's question to see whether it is possible to reply to it, but it does not arise out of the original Question, which relates to questions of complaint and balance.

At the end of Questions —

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order. During the exchanges in Question Time, the Prime Minister said that certain correspondence which was alleged to have passed between the Opposition Chief Whip of the Conservative Party and my hon. Friend the Whip for the Liberal Party had not, to his knowledge, been received. Having seen the copies of those letters which were sent to the right hon. Gentleman, may we ask the Prime Minister whether, if upon subsequent reflection he finds that the position as he described it is not what it happens to be, he will take an early opportunity to make a statement to the House clarifying the position and thereby setting the record right?

The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order. I said that I would make a statement if I had any chance of checking on this. The answer which I gave earlier was based on a quick consultation with my right hon. Friends who are in touch with the Opposition on this matter. I said that, when I had had a chance to check on it, I would make a statement


in the House. I have now, with the same speed that the right hon. Gentleman is able to command, had the statement. I confirm the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that they have said that they have no objection to publishing and registering any complaints which we may make and he—that is, the Opposition Chief Whip—went on to say, if he does not mind my quoting his letter, that they have
… considerable doubt as to the practical value of such a register … the whole question will have to be discussed with the broadcasting authorities before any final decision can be made.
The answer which I gave was based on the situation as I saw it and on consultation with my right hon. Friends. I have consulted my right hon. Friend and I am very glad—I do not think that much time has been lost—to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which was made in good faith by himself in the House 10 minutes ago, and answered in equally good faith by myself—[Interruption.]—I am accepting the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. I expressed my regret at the long delay earlier, but I accept what he said. I have now seen the correspondence for myself for the first time. The answer I gave earlier was on the information fairly supplied to me, and I think that it is right—

Hon. Members: Monstrous!

Mr. Speaker: Order. When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen come to the House in this way, the House usually accepts their good faith.

The Prime Minister: I was saying that I thought it right to make a statement at the earliest opportunity. I do not think that I have been very slow. The letter of the Conservative Chief Whip to the Liberal Chief Whip, of which we have a copy, is what I have just read out.

MINISTERS (ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS)

Mr. Lane: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now reduce the number of Ministers concerned with economic and industrial matters.

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister whether he will restructure the appropriate: Government Departments so

as to enable them to deal more effectively with the unemployment situation.

The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to what I said on the machinery of government in the debate on the Fulton Report on 21st November.—[Vol. 773, c. 1557–60.]

Mr. Lane: Will the Prime Minister give more thought to this so that we can have less confusion in economic policy, and less interference with in dustry?

The Prime Minister: It is the need for consultation with industry—and I have recently had discussions with the C.B.I. about the need for still further consultation—which makes necessary the work done by various economic Departments. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has said in any sense represents the views of either side of industry.

Mr. Marten: Is the Prime Minister aware that 16 Ministers are concerned with economic affairs, and that none of them appears to be capable of giving a straight answer to a simple question about the level of unemployment which is acceptable to the Government in line with their election pledge of full employment? Can the Prime Minister say what it is?

The Prime Minister: I answered that question as long as 20th July, 1966. The hon. Gentleman can look at that answer. I am sure he will rejoice in the fact that the underlying trend, seasonally corrected, for employment has been falling quite sharply in recent months.

Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend give one of the economic Ministers the task of counteracting the malicious, politically-motivated activities of rumour mongers who so recently have had such a bad effect on our balance of payments?

The Prime Minister: I hope that my hon. Friend will not take this situation too seriously. It is a fact that a minority of people who are able to affect the holding of national assets are extremely amateurish in the political rumours in which they believe, which no hon. Member would be likely to accept, but, even having allowed for that, and such degree of political slant as my hon. Friend finds in some of them, I think that what happened last Friday was totally unpredictable so far as the belief in these stupid


rumours is concerned. What was totally predictable was that the right hon. Gentleman, seeing trouble for sterling, would seek to make capital out of it.

Sir R. Cary: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, if pressure continues on sterling, and the nation finds itself with a badly depreciated currency, that will bring about crisis decisions whereby Parliament will have to act as a Council of State?

The Prime Minister: I think I was right in my assessment about who the senior Conservative was who titillated the interest of The Times. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, which is entirely hypothetical, I should say that one of the qualifications of hon. Members is that they are sufficiently wise and experienced not to believe some of the silly rumours which were circulated last Friday, or some of the silly red herrings which have been started since then. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the strength of sterling basically depends on the progress we are making with our balance of payments and the relation between exports and imports, and on that my right hon. Friend, in the last economic debate, and again on Saturday, made quite clear what the very strong upward trend in exports was. I think that a Council of State might spend more time putting these facts across to the country, and even to the most naive speculators, and it may be led in that respect by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not so much the gnomes of Zurich or the leprechauns of Thread-needle Street who disturb me, but rather the pixies and bambies on the other side of the House who never hesitate to make unpatriotic statements if they think they will give them a party advantage?

The Prime Minister: I would have thought that that was so self-evident that it was not necessary for me to confirm it. What I think does cause serious trouble is that certain people abroad who are free to speculate in the British nation's reserve assets believe that a great deal could be done by reduction of Government expenditure, as we are repeatedly told by the party opposite, yet for the last three days the Leader of the Opposition and their spokesmen have been

pressing for large increases in local authority expenditure.

Mr. Birch: Reverting to the actual Question which the right hon. Gentleman was asked, could I know when the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs is going to issue his National Plan Mark II, and how much it has been delayed by the events of the last two months?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman whose interest in these matters is well known, will be delighted to know that tomorrow morning the document on future planning will be considered by the National Economic Development Council, under my chairmanship, and that it has not been delayed. The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual fairness, will, I am sure, join me in expressing the deep regret of the House at the pretty serious illness of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and the fact that he will not be able to play a part in the discussions tomorrow.

Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House and the country that Britain is very much a creditor nation, that our overseas assets vastly exceed our liabilities, and that the balance of payments deficit over the past four years is more than accounted for by the foreign exchange costs of overseas military spending and the private outflow of capital to advanced countries?

The Prime Minister: If I were so to remind them, I would further point out that the overseas military expenditure, which grew out of all proportion from the early 1960s onwards, has now been cut back and will be cut back very severely over the next four years, despite the fact that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are committed to vast increases in that expenditure. What my hon. Friend says is right as to the facts, but, in a neurotic situation, people are not so interested in facts as in rumours. The fact on which they should base themselves is the progress of this country in relation to the trade balance, of which my right hon. Friend gave figures a few days ago.

Sir C. Osborne: Referring to the unemployment situation mentioned in Question No. Q4, will the right hon.


Gentleman be good enough to promise the country that, in the coming year, the present half a million totally unemployed will be cut by a half?

The Prime Minister: That would be so completely opposed to the policy always advocated by the Opposition that I would not give such an assurance because their whole prices and incomes policy depends on keeping the labour market in such a state that wage claims would not be pressed at all. It would mean further unemployment. Unemployment is at the moment falling, although it is too high, as we have said, but what is of paramount importance is that employment opportunities should be spread more evenly. In this context the whole House will have noticed the serious attacks on our development area policy ard expenditure by the Leader of the Opposition in the last economic debate.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are well past Question Time.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. David Ensor: Mr. David Ensor (Bury and Radcliffe): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1928, the Slaughter of Animals Act 1958 and the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967 for the purposes of abolishing the exemptions in favour of ritual slaughter and for other purposes connected therewith.

This matter was before the House on 12th December, 1956, and was again moved by the then hon. Member for Dorset, North, Mr. Robert Crouch, and was defeated. What I am suggesting, first—and what I am hoping the House may agree with—is that, on this sort of occasion, these sort of Motions, which are undoubtedly very controversial, should be allowed to be brought in and the Bill then discussed on the Floor on Second Reading. We can then thrash the matter out and both sides can state their case in detail. I have no opportunity to do that in the very few minutes at my disposal and I am sure that the opposition are in the same situation.

But I believe and hope that the House will agree that I could be given leave to bring in this Bill. If we bring it in and have a Second Reading debate, I will, of course, as I am bound to do, abide by the will of the House.

I am making the simple suggestion that all animals should be slaughtered in the most humane possible way. This is, of course, a matter of opinion for experts. When I was practising the law we used to say that there were liars, damned liars and expert witnesses. This is perfectly true, because one can always find experts to say one thing on one side and other experts to say something else on the other side.

I contend that if one takes an animal from a hill, puts it in a box, turns it upside down, stretches its neck out and cuts its throat, that is cruel and inhumane. In its wisdom, Parliament has said, from as far back as 1933, that if animals are to be killed they must be slaughtered humanely. In other words, we have said that they must be stunned before their throats are cut. We agree that slaughter is an extremely unpleasant thing. That can be said of any form of slaughter. However, I earnestly ask on this occasion


that hon. Members should allow me to introduce my Bill and so provide that all animals are stunned before their throats are cut.

I have had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the Muslim community. I have been told that there is no objection in the Koran or through any other aspect of their religious persuasion to the stunning of animals before cutting. I am, therefore, asking that every animal should be dealt with in the same way.

There are, of course, problems and I accept that in this situation there are bound to be problems. I make no bones about that. In the short time at my disposal I cannot go into every aspect of the matter, although I remind the House that during the last few weeks I have received more than 700 letters—I got 74 this morning—and 8,000 signatures on this subject. Only 15 of them were against my proposed Bill. I believe that the majority of people believe that every animal that is to be killed should be humanely stunned before having its throat cut.

As I said, there are bound to be difficulties and problems. I am sure that those who oppose me on this occasion will raise religious problems. I accept their beliefs. I do not believe for a moment that any hon. Member could accuse me of being intolerant. I hope that no such charge will be made. One can certainly speak of religious matters. We had the Spanish Inquisition, the rack, the thumb-screw and what was delightfully called the scavenger's daughter. Ridley and Latimer were burned, Cranmer was executed, Mary I put to death the Protestants and Elizabeth I put to death the Catholics. I could go on endlessly giving examples.

Now the time has come when all religions should bring themselves up to date and recognise that this is a matter of humanity. We no longer allow cats, dogs and other animals to be slaughtered by having their throats cut. They must be put to death humanely. If we are to continue slaughtering animals, then in this day and age they should be slaughtered in the most humane possible way.

I said that I accepted the views of certain people. I earnestly do. I had an argument on this subject on radio with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax

(Dr. Summerskill) on Sunday. She does not agree with me. I accept the view of those who say that the present Jewish method of slaughter is humane. We had a pleasant discussion, but I am interested to note that in 1956 her mother, Baroness Summerskill, in the Upper House, voted in favour of my proposal—[Interruption.] I was about to say that while I entirely accept her views—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is anxious to be fair. The custom is that an hon. Member should not be interrupted when asking leave to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minute Rule. By the same token, I suggest that he should not refer to another, a member of another place, who will not have a chance of intervening.

Mr. Ensor: While I entirely accept her views, which I am sure are honest in every possible way, I should, nevertheless, be allowed to bring in my Bill so that its provisions may be discussed in detail on the Floor of the House.
Throughout the world today there is a great deal of man's inhumanity to man. There is a vast amount of cruelty. Cruelty to animals does not mean the sight of blood, but the smell of it. Animals do not see. They smell. In view of all the cruelty in the world today, I am asking the House, by the light of one small candle, to allow man to be a little less inhumane to man by slaughtering in the most humane possible way the animals which must be slaughtered.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: Whatever our differences on this matter, I am sure that the House will want to recognise the deep sincerity of the motives which have led my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) to take this course. By the same token, I am sure that, with his usual fairness, he will acquit me and other hon. Members who may differ from him of being indifferent to animal suffering. He will also agree that the Jewish and Muslim communities have never been lacking in humanitarianism.
I have had the opportunity of witnessing the slaughter of animals by both methods. I do not believe that my observations can add much to the testimony of the 450 eminent scientists, none of


them Jewish, who have pronounced on this matter, although I hold a slightly higher view of their integrity than ob viously does my hon. Friend. If I had witnessed anything which indicated pain, distress or fear among the animals, I assure my hon. Friend that I would have joined him in the Aye Lobby today.
The view of these scientists is that a clean cut with a sharp instrument does not result in pain. This has been verified by those who, like me, have had the experience of looking down at one's hand to see blood streaming from a cut which had been imposed several seconds earlier without noticing. For this reason it has been considered, from Roman times and perhaps earlier, that the most painless method of committing suicide is the cutting of the throat or wrists.
It is difficult in the time available to read the testimonies of some of the surgeons who have questioned their patients about this. All of them have assured us that no one who has suffered a cut throat has reported pain. This is the evidence of many who have lost consciousness through loss of blood and been able afterwards to report their experience. We have their experience as evidence. The truth is that one blow imposed by an official whose expertise has been acquired through a very long and detailed training, severs both the carotid arteries and the jugular vein and stops the blood supply to the brain.
I have had the opportunity of discussing this matter with some of these men and have seen them at work. I am quite satisfied that they would not lend themselves to any form of cruelty. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not a pleasant sight. Of course, no one pretends that slaughter by any method adds to the visual beauty in the world, but the question to which the House will want to address its mind is not the effect on the spectators, but the effect on the animals. Here we have the testimony of the experts and of many hon. Members who have had an opportunity of witnessing it.

Division No 30.]
AYES
[3.54 p.m.


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Costain, A. P.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Body, Richard
Crouch, David


Bell, Ronald
Booth, Albert
Currie, G. B. H.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Carlisle, Mark
Elliot, Cant. Walter (Carshalton)


Biffen, John
Chapman, Donald
Emery, Peter

Like my hon. Friend I would wish for more time to discuss this matter in detail. I found it a little difficult to follow his reference to a Second Reading debate, because I understand that that is a most unlikely event. Unfortunately, the decision of the House as it will appear to the community is the decision of the House this afternoon.

Only one further thing remains to be said. The House may wonder what is my concern in this question. I am not Jewish, I do not eat kosher food, and I have no interest to declare. My interest is that I regard it as a very serious matter for any legislature to prohibit the practices of any minority—[HON. MEMBERS: "Whatever they are?"] No, not whatever they are, of course. There must be practices which are so repulsive to the House that we would feel bound to prohibit them. I think that we would do that with a heavy heart and reluctantly, and not on the evidence given this afternoon, nor from the fund of evidence of expert witnesses who have reported on it.

It does not carry the matter further to say that some Muslims take a different view. The House would not wish to arbitrate in a theological dispute within the Muslim community. Many Muslims, and at least 200,000 Jews, believe that their consciences enjoin upon them this practice. To say that others take a different view is merely to emphasise the need for tolerance. I believe that it would be a tragedy if, on 10th December, 1968, Human Rights Day and the culmination of International Human Rights Year, this House, with its tradition of fairness and tolerance, were, from the most humanitarian of motives, to take a decision which would be widely interpreted, and would be, in fact, as being both intolerant and unfair.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 {Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Busi ness):—

The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes

Eyre Reginald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Finch, Harold
Kershaw, Anthony
Sheldon, Robert


Glyn Sir Richard
King, Evelyn (Dorset. S.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Goodhew, Victor
Lane, David
Speed, Keith


Gregory, Arnold
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lomas, Kenneth
Symonds, J. B.


Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)
Loveys, W. H.
Thornton, Ernest


Heffer, Eric S.
Mapp, Charles
Tinn, James


Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hooley, Frank
Montgomery, Fergus
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hooson, Emlyn
Murton, Oscar
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Neave, Airey
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)




Woof, Robert


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Park, Trevor



Kenyon, Clifford
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pounder, Rafton
Mr. John Ellis and


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Miss J. M. Quennell.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Freeson, Reginald
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Alldritt, Walter
Galpern, Sir Myer
McBride, Neil


Allen, Scholefield
Gardner, Tony
MacColl, James


Ashley, Jack
Garrett, W. E.
Macdonald, A. H.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Barnett, Joel
Ginsburg, David
Mackie, John


Batsford, Brian
Goodhart, Philip
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bence, Cyril
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gower, Raymond
McMaster, Stanley


Bessell, Peter
Grant, Anthony
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bidwell, Sydney
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Maddan, Martin


Bishop, E. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Black, Sir Cyril
Gresham-Cooke, R.
Manuel, Archie


Blaker, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marks, Kenneth


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Braddock, Mrs. E, M.
Hamling, William
Mendelson, John


Braine, Bernard
Hannan, William
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mills, Stratum (Belfast, N.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harrison Brian (Maldon)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Miscampbell, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Haseldine, Norman
Molloy, William


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hastings, Stephen
Moonman, Eric


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hazell, Bert
Multey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Coe, Denis
Henig, Stanley
Murray, Albert


Cooke, Robert
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Higgins, Terence L.
Norwood, Christopher


Cronin, John
Hiley, Joseph
Ogden, Eric


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hilton, W. S.
Onslow, Cranley


Dalyell, Tam
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Orbach, Maurice


Dance, James
Hordern, Peter
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Horner, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hoy, James
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'ton)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Dean, Paul
Hunter, Adam
Pardoe, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Iremonger, T. L.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Delargy, Hugh
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dell, Edmund
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Dempsey, James
Jeger,Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dewar, Donald
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Perry, George H. (Battersea, S.)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Doig, Peter
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Drayson, G. B.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Dunn, James A.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dunnett, Jack
Kelley, Richard
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pym, Francis


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Edelman, Maurice
Lawson, George
Randall, Harry


Eden, sir John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rees, Merlyn


English Michael
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Richard, Ivor


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lipton, Marcus
Roebuck, Roy


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Lubbock, Eric
Rose, Paul


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Ford, Ben









Rowlands, E.
Taylor,Edward M. (G'gow.Cathcart)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Teeling, Sir William
Wiliams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Short, Mrs. rené e (W'hampton,N.E.)
Thorpe Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Woodnutt, Mark


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John Deptford)
Tilney, John
Worsley, Marcus


Silverman Julius
Tomney, Frank
Wright, Esmond


Silvester, Frederick
Tuck, Raphael
Wyatt, Woodrow


Small, William
Vickers, Dame Joan
Younger, Hn. George


Snow, Julian
Wall, Patrick



Stodart, Anthony
Weitzman, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wellbeloved James
Mr. Charles Pannell and


Summers, Sir Spencer
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mr. Peter Archer.


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress 27th November, 1968.]

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

Clause 10

BANDS OF MUSIC, TORCHES, FLAGS AND BANNERS

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: Although we have much work in front of us for the next two days, I do not think that we should pass the Clause without seeking some explanation and clarification of its effects from my right hon. and learned Member the Attorney-General. Section 97 (1) of the 1949 Act prohibited payment as an election expense for bands of music, among other things. This was presumably to preserve the dignity of an election and not merely to kill its liveliness. I assume that this Section was aimed not at the average candidate, but at the black sheep among candidates who wanted to use flamboyant and strident music along with torchlight processions and banners as a sort of rabble rouser which could lead to violence.
Mr. Speaker's Conference, in paragraphs 17 and 18 of its Report, considered the matter of the rather harmless use and application of music during an election and said:
17. Music at elections
The law should be amended so as to make it clear that the prohibition on payment for

bands of music does not include a prohibition on payments for recorded music.
18. Torches, flags and banners at elections
The words 'torches', 'flags', and 'banners' should be denned so as to exclude payment only for those forms which are open to objection.
The Clause attempts to make the necessary amendment to the law, but I am not sure that what we are trying to do is logical. If we are attempting to improve the law, which is the 1949 Act, our motto should be to do even better this time to ensure that the law makes sense and to define what is and what is not permitted. My interpretation of the Clause is that it is now lawful to use recorded music during an election either indoors or out of doors and to pay the appropriate fee to Phonographic Productions Limited. What we must not do is to pay for live musicians.
My first question to my right hon. and learned Friend is: what is so terrible about employing live musicians and paying them? It seems that a candidate may employ live musicians so long as he does not pay them. It is not the music which causes offence. It is giving money to the poor musician for his services. Is that what Parliament intends to do by the Clause? It is not only a ludicrous anomaly. I suggest that it is intrinsically dangerous, in that it could put one candidate at an advantage over the others in an election.
My hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip, who I am glad to see in his place, is a very prominent and well-respected member of the Musicians' Union. I have no doubt that his colleagues in that Union would do their best to secure his reelection to the House of Commons. If Ted Heath and the members of his band are members of that union, they might well go to Rotherham to ensure my hon. Friend's election. This would put my hon. Friend at an advantage over the other candidates in the election, because


his opponents could not even counter this by paying a band or musicians and putting it in as an election expense. The Clause would prohibit them from doing so.
I seem to remember that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in 1964, and I think also in 1966, had an opponent called "Screaming Lord Sutch", who lost his deposit in both elections. "Screaming Lord Sutch" would be able to use music and bring fellow musicians to the constituency to assist him, but my right hon. Friend would not be able to pay a band to counter the music coming from the other side.
Not long ago, when there was the great controversy about pirate radio stations, a number of candidates stood in local elections, and one or two at by-elections, I think, part of whose platform was the support of pirate radio.
At the moment, this may appear to be a minor matter, but we must take into account what, rightly or wrongly, we have already done in the Bill. We have extended the franchise to people between 18 and 21 years of age. It is no good burying our heads in the sand as to the effect of that change. This will be a new electorate, and all parties will be working hard to win the votes of young people between 18 and 21. We shall. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite will, and so will the Liberal Party. So will people who are not represented in the House today.
People of that age are keenly interested in music, and particularly interested in "pop" and folk music. I can envisage a time when parties on both sides of the House may not conduct elections in the way that Americans conduct them, but they will adopt ways of approaching an electorate with which we do not at present deal at all. I cannot see that to approach such an electorate through folk music, for example, would be a bad thing to do. There is nothing improper in it.
Many political messages today are conveyed by folk music, and the more imaginative appeal of folk singers would probably be far better than the dreary speeches which all of us, on both sides, are inclined to deliver at election time. But let us remember that we now live in a world of discotheques, folk groups and

"pop" groups, a very different world from that of the 1949 Act.
Now, another question. Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me whether the Clause will forbid payment of musicians and the use of banners only outdoors, as the word "procession" would imply, or will the prohibition apply to indoor gatherings as well? Do we consider that it is wrong to employ a group of musicians to liven up an election meeting and to pay them, or would that constitute a "demonstration" in the terms of Clause 10? If we do consider it wrong, why is it right to do the same thing and not pay them? And why is it right if we pre-record the music and play the tape or play a commercial record made by an artist who does not know that his record is being used in this way at an election and who might bitterly object to its being used for that purpose?
The Clause introduces anomalies. I do not believe that the intention is to prevent live musicians from being paid for their services, but that seems to be the effect of it. It allows recorded music. It allows music which is not paid for. It does not allow music which is paid for.
I ask the Committee to consider not the bands, flag waving and processions which may have been a feature of the 1930s but, rather, the elections of the future at which there may well be folk groups, "pop" groups or discotheques, for example, used to inaugurate election meetings. In my view, that would not be an improper thing to do at an election, but, on the other hand, it would seem most improper if one could do it only on a free basis and not pay the musicians who are providing a useful service to the candidates.

4.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): In dealing with the interesting points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) it may be helpful if I begin by saying a little about the Section of the 1949 Act which is amended by Clause 10. Section 97 (1) provides that
No payment … shall, for the purpose of promoting … the election of a candidate at an election, be made on account of bands of music, torches, flags or banners".


That prohibition was of greater practical importance about 100 years ago than it is today. I suppose that it was directed against rabble-rousing hired bands in the streets accompanied by the whole paraphernalia of flags, banners and torches liable to cause disorder and, perhaps, even intimidation.
The prohibition directed against that kind of mischief has undoubtedly given rise to one or two practical difficulties, and these, as my hon. Friend pointed out, were the subject of two recommendations by the Electoral Advisory Conference. Recommendation 17 was:
The law should be amended so as to make clear that the prohibition on payments for bands of music does not include a prohibition on payments for recorded music".
Recommendation 18 was:
The words 'torches', 'flags' and 'banners' should be defined so as to exclude payment only for those forms which are open to objection.
It may not be immediately apparent to the Committee what Section 97 (1) has to do with recorded music. The explanation is that the playing in public of recorded music normally involves—or, as my hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip might say, ought to involve—payment to the holders of the copyright. Those payments are made through the Performing Rights Society or the Phonographic Society. It is arguable that such a payment is made on account of bands of music even though it is not made directly to the band, and even though the band takes no personal part in the election meeting or proceed ings.
However, whatever the effect of the existing provision, the amendment which Clause 10 makes takes payments for the use of recorded music outside Section 97, and it does that by limiting the Section to payments made
with reference or with a view to the employment of the band … in a procession or demon stration".
It would be hard to argue that the playing of a gramophone record involved the employment in a procession or demonstration of a band which in some remote studio had made the record. So far, I hope that my hon. Friend is happy with the Clause.
The amendment made by the Clause also meets the point raised in the second recommendation of the Electoral Advisory Conference, which I cited a few

moments ago, that expenditure on torches, flags or banners is prohibited only if they are to be used in a procession or demonstration. Used on other occa sions at an indoor election meeting they are unobjectionable.
The occasions to which the prohibition applies are those at which the use of these things might amount to a show intended to intimidate voters. Occasions of that kind would still come within the prohibition, but at an ordinary election meeting held in a hall there is no reason why music should not be played or why it should not be played by a band of live musicians. I take it that those who play in bands normally enjoy active life. There is no objection, therefore, under the terms of the Clause to the hiring of a band of live musicians to provide music at an election meeting in a hall, and, similarly, there will hereafter be no offence if the hall is decorated with flags or banners.
The Clause will allow money to be spent at election meetings indoors, but any expenditure on a band will form part of the candidate's election expenses, and it will be a matter of judgment for him whether he can afford to spend any part of his limited allowance on bands. It may well be that he has enough natural eloquence and appeal not to require such extraneous attractions as "Alexander's Ragtime Band", or whatever the equivalent may be. But hereafter that will be a matter for his judgment as to how he spends his money.
At any rate, the Clause will enable those who think fit to add a little colour and music to their election campaign by paying for a band to provide entertainment at ordinary election meetings to do so. What will be forbidden is payment for a band to take part in an outdoor procession or demonstration which might run into the mischief that Section 97 of the 1949 Act was initially directed against.
I hope that those assurances will satisfy both my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West and my hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip who, I see, is listen ing to me with a most careful ear.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I should be grateful if the Attorney-General would carry his exposition a little further. If I understood


him aright, it will be lawful, under the Clause, to arrange for and pay for both music and banners at an indoor meeting. I take it by implication that he is reading with the word "demonstration" a preceding adjective, "outdoor". A meeting in a very big hall is sometimes described colloquially as a demonstration. Have I the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance that, however large and splendid a meeting, as long as there is a roof over it it is not a demonstration under the Clause?
If that interpretation is right, why would an outdoor meeting not enjoy the same benefits? After all, it is a matter of climate, and perhaps of the time of year when an election takes place, whether major meetings are held indoors or outdoors. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts emphasis on "indoors", I take it that at a perfectly static meeting arranged outdoors simply because there was no appropriate hall for it, or because the weather was good, or for some other reason, one would not be able to use the same banners and music as one could use indoors. If that interpretation is right, why is that so? What justification is there for penalising an outdoor meet ing?
I do not accept the Attorney-General's argument about music being likely to intimidate voters, though some "pop" music sometimes frightens me. That argument is not very convincing, and it can make no difference whether the music is at an outdoor or indoor meeting.
I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer those two questions, and, if my interpretation in the first is right, to give me the justification for the state of affairs outlined in my second.

The Attorney-General: The mischief the Clause and Section 97 are directed against was bands gathering together large crowds and marching through areas where their presence might arouse public disorder. I do not think that the problem is that the band itself might be intimidating, but that it might be the focal point of a crowd and then a procession through a disputed area, where there might be a considerable concentration of opposing political forces.
That is the kind of mischief that I think Section 97 was directed against,

the idea that one could hire large bands and use them as a means of creating trouble of that kind in a procession.
I think that the emphasis is on the moving body. A body of the populous following a band in procession is what it is feared might be an occasion for creating public disorder. A static outdoor meeting might well be outside the contemplated prohibition, but I shall have another look at that point between now and Report. I do not at present see why a static outdoor meeting, on a sunny day, in a park, should create the kind of mischief the legislation is directed against. The intention is that the protection should extend to the use of hired bands. The emphasis is on the payment. The band of enthusiastic amateurs willing to play for nothing—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is even more frightening.

The Attorney-General: —has never been within section 97 anyway, so if enthusiastic amateurs who can be en listed to play for nothing that is all right. If the candidate has the good or bad fortune to have a number of such volun teers, he does not have to declare the item in his election expenses because they are not paid.
But I shall consider whether the Clause excludes bands from static outdoor meet ings. I do not think that special protec tion is needed there, because I do not think that it gives rise to any special mischief.

Mr. Oakes: I am mollified by my right hon. and learned Friend's explanation that the Clause does not apply indoors, and even more by his assurance to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that he will look again at the very important question whether it should apply to outdoor meetings. The right hon. Gentleman's points were very apposite.
While considering the question, will my right hon. and learned Friend look at the position that the Clause could put us in even when dealing with static meetings? Would it permit loudspeaker vans and cars to blast out Wagnerian music, marches and similar music, at full pitch perfectly legitimately whereas a small procession led by a girl with a guitar would be entirely illegal if she was paid?
I was a little disturbed when my right hon. and learned Friend said that we were concerned with the payment. Like the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, I am more afraid of unpaid bands rabble-rousing than of paid bands doing it.

Sir Douglas Glover: Is not there some illogicality in the reply of the Attorney-General? A paid band, which, presumably, would play reasonably in tune, and therefore, would not make the population in the streets through which a procession passed absolutely furious, would break the law because it was paid. But an unpaid band, perhaps making a fiendish row, which upset people ar.d created a riot, would be all right. As the whole purpose of an election is to try to get as many people as possible to listen to the arguments of the contestants, is it not illogical to prohibit paid bands?
If the Attorney-General thinks that bands going through a district will create a riot, should not the unpaid bands also be prohibited? One cannot have it both ways. The unpaid band is much more likely to create a riot than the paid band which is probably playing good music.

The Attorney-General: There may be some illogicality about this, but the thinking behind it is that if a candidate has the resources to hire paid bands for public processions this would be capable of creating disorder. If he has enthusiastic volunteers to play the trumpet for him, I agree that that might also create a certain amount of disorder. But the element of paying for it to be done is thought to introduce some additional objectionable factor and this has been part of our laws since the 19th century. It probably derived from a general practice of hiring bands at the time and which did cause massive disorders.

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

4.30 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: There is a slight difference. During the 19th century there was no limit on the amount of money a candidate could spend. Now, every candidate is severely limited in expenditure, so the evil is more apparent than real.

The Attorney-General: This is directed to the issue of election expenditure and what should be charged. I am sorry to take up so much time with this rather small matter, for there are very much more important matters for consideration. The Clause gives some reassurance at any rate to the bands of musicians who are eager to render service on payment, and it clarifies the position by enabling payment to be made in the circumstances indicated. I will look at the points raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames before Re port.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: The Attorney-General's law is excellent, but I doubt whether his history is quite so good. Surely the objective originally was not to prevent disorder, but to prevent bribery. Historically, the way one bribed people was by paying them to carry banners and torches and even to play musical instruments and cymbals. If it were allowed, this would be a simple way to bribe people even today although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has pointed out, the total amount of expense is limited and, in addition, the modern electorate has many tens of thousands as against the few hundreds or thousands when this provision was originally brought in. The effect, therefore, would be very little damaging
As I have said, this was originally a provision to prevent not disorder but corruption, which was actively engaged in at the time.

The Attorney-General: I accept that addition to my knowledge, but I would not regard it as an extension.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Why cannot the Government simply take this Clause out of the Bill? I agree with the historical version of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). We have had this sort of thing in the House only recently. We were told the other day that people could eat apples here for no other reason than that they did it in the 18th century. They also brought moles into the Chamber at that time, but we do not pray that in aid any more.
What good will the Clause do? As the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D.


Glover) has pointed out, all this is incorporated in the general expenses allowed to a candidate. If the Labour Party wanted to hold a great demonstration in Bellevue, Manchester, it might want to hire Black Dyke Mills Band—which is an excellent band—while the Conservative Party might want to hire a band at Wembley Stadium and both would have to account for it all. There is no reason at all for this Clause, except the Home Office's antediluvian attitude. Let us get rid of it and get on with the Bill.

The Attorney-General: I will look at this matter again. I must say that it seems to me a rather attractive Clause, bringing a little light and colour into the election scene. Anything that would diminish light and colour in this drab life I would certainly oppose. However, I will look again at the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

ELECTION AGENTS, POLLING AGENTS AND COUNTING AGENTS

Mr. Richard Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 9, line 28, leave out 'ob servers' and insert 'scrutineers'.

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 21, page 10, line 1, leave out 'observer' and insert 'scrutineer'.

No. 22, in line 5, leave out 'observer' and insert 'scrutineer'.
No. 23, in line 10, leave out 'observers' and insert 'scrutineers'.

standing in the names of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) and of other hon. and right hon. Members.

Mr. Sharples: Subsection (4) of the Clause states:
The term 'counting agent' shall be discontinued, and the agents appointed by a candidate to attend at the counting of the votes at a Parliamentary or local government elec-

tion shall be known as the candidate's observers at the count.
The Amendment is not of great substance or importance, but, in our view, the term "observer" does not give a clear indication of the duties of those who attend a count on behalf of a candidate. It is probably fair to say that everyone thinks of an observer as being an interested spectator. Indeed, this is one of the definitions in the Oxford Dictionary.
We propose to substitute the word "scrutineer" because we believe that it gives a clearer indication of the duties which are clearly laid down in Schedule 2 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. I need not rehearse those, since every right hon. and hon. Member knows what happens at a count. In the circumstances, I ask the Government to consider this Amendment carefully.

Mr. C. Pannell: I hope that the Gov ernment will accept the Amendment. The word "scrutineer" has a more positive ring about it. It indicates that some rights rest with candidates and that their repre sentatives are not just passive observers, but are agents. This Amendment would give status to the word "scrutineer".
The Association of Municipal Corporations wants the word "observer", but I am all for playing up the electing element and keeping functionaries in their place. I want to create rights for candidates. At the end of the day, an election is about a person who will occupy a position and that idea should run throughout the election. I have seen observers or scrutineers, whatever they might be called, barely tolerated.
Leeds, as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kabery) will agree, has far more civilised arrangements, but I have been to many counts throughout the country and have seen town clerks and others tending to think that political parties have no rights at all almost until the declaration. Anything which tends to emphasise what an election is and gives point rather than complacency to it is something we should stand up for.

Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has spoken of rights. I suport the Amendment, but speak of duties.

Mr. C. Pannell: The same thing.

Mr. Smith: Not at all. I once wrote to a dim public body, asking a question. I received the reply:

"Dear Sir,

The Commissioners of the River Stour have rights, but no duties.

Yours faithfully."

There is indeed an important difference between rights and duties. My experience of counting agents has been that, by the time they get to the count they realise that their work is near an end and it is difficult to get them to do the job properly. If we call them "observers", which conjures up the idea of a passive rô le and not of positive activity, it will be even more difficult.

I therefore support the proposal to change the term to "scrutineer", which is both more positive and has an active connotation.

Mr. James Allason: The right hon. Member for Leeds, West, (Mr. C. Pannell) has stated that the Association of Municipal Corporations is against the Amendment. It would be fair to say that his view is that officials should be kept in their place. On the whole, however, we should equally be prepared to listen to the advice of officials.
This is valuable advice, coming from the Association of Municipal Corporations, which represents those who have to perform this arduous business of counting. If the term is "scrutineer", there is a strong danger that the person fulfilling that duty will believe that they have the right to interfere, perhaps even a duty, whereas if they are observers, they observe. If there is some dispute whether a vote has been properly counted it is not the duty of the scrutineer or observer to interfere. He should draw the attention of the official present to what he considers to be an irregularity, but he cannot interfere. The grave danger is that if the observer thinks that he has become a scrutineer he will believe that he has the duty to come forward and interfere.

Mr. C. Pannell: Speaking as a rather more senior vice-president of the A.M.C., may I point out that the word has been used during all the years that I have been concerned with politics, without any difficulty at all? We are changing it here today.

Mr. Allason: Yes, and because this is a time of change is it not right that we should listen to the advice of the experts? I am sorry that, as a senior vice-president, the right hon. Gentleman will not join with me in accepting the advice of those who are more expert than he or I.

Sir D. Glover: I do not like to oppose my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), but I agree with the other speeches that have been made on the subject. Speaking as a "medium" vice-president, of the A.M.C., in between the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), and my hon. Friend, but having a good deal of knowledge of these things, as I have fought eight elections, I believe that it is an important alteration to change the word "scrutineer" to "observer". People on both sides who go into the count will consider that they have been reduced to a lower status; indeed, I think that this is the intention of the municipal authorities.
If the word is changed it will lead over the years to a lot more recounts, because instead of the observer watching a person counting and saying," By the way, there is a mistake for Glover in that lot", what will happen now is that the scrutineer will feel inhibited from saying this. Instead, he will go away after the count has finished and say, "There are a lot of mistakes on my table".
Now the scrutineer considers that he has a fairly positive rô le to play in the details of the count. If he is reduced to the level of observer, and is not allowed to open his mouth, but can only watch what is going on, he will go to the election agent and say that there were a lot of mistakes at his table and will suggest a recount. Normally, a lot of mistakes are corrected by the scrutineer watching carefully from the other side of the table, seeing that a mistake is put right as it goes along. The Government would be very wise to reinsert "scrutineer" and take away the word "observer". I hope that the Minister will agree that the weight of the argument is for no alteration or change, and will, therefore, accept this Amendment.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Keith Speed: I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) have said. Over the past few years I have noticed a tendency to regard candidates in political parties, during the count, as being the least important people there. Everything gives way to television or radio, or the officials concerned, who do a very good job. We have to remember, however, what the whole thing is about. It is not a spectacle, or a particular function at which the local authorities can show how efficient they are, and they are certainly efficient. The counting agents, as they are at the moment, scrutineers as I hope they will be, have a right and duty at all stages during the count to draw to the atten tion of the person concerned at the individual table the errors and mistakes that inevitably occur.
I have been to a number of counts, my own, and those of other Members of Parliament. Mistakes always occur at every table. This is not unusual when one is talking in terms of 40,000 or 60,000 votes. We have to give a positive function to these people. "Observers" is far too passive. Millions of "observers" watch elections on tele vision. For those taking part in the count, members of political parties and representatives of the candidate, there is a job for them and it is up to Parliament to make that clear.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I speak as a non-president of any sort. In pursuing the argument against these Amendments I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) sees very clearly that there is an important rô le for the candidates and their supporters at elections. If there is any feeling that this is not generally recognised already, this Amendment would not necessarily help matters. If there is this strong feeling that at some counts due regard is not given to those who have worked hard for the previous three weeks, it might be that this can be corrected at some other point in the Bill.
The four Amendments to Clause 11 obviously go together. Let me make it clear what they seek to do. They seek to substitute "scrutineer" for the word

"observer" in the phrase "candidate's observer" which the Bill, in turn, seeks to substitute for the term "counting agent" wherever it occurs in the 1949 Act. The term "counting agent" is used in the 1949 Act to describe the sub ordinate agent of a candidate, whose job is to watch the returning officer's staff counting the votes and to object to a vote given for an opposing candidate which he thinks is bad. Whatever change in nomenclature is made there is no desire, indeed it would be very foolish, to change that. It is a most important job done by representatives of the candidates.
However, the term is liable to be con fused with "counting assistant", which is commonly used to describe a clerk employed by the returning officer to count the votes. For that reason the Electoral Advisory Conference advised a change. Because the Government have not accepted all recommendations it would be foolish of me to say any more than that this should be taken into account. A great deal of thought has been given to this. The term "counting assistant" is not statutory, and it could be argued that it might be best to leave the statutory term "counting agent", but to change the term "counting assistant", as it is merely a matter of common usage.
The fact that the term "counting assistant" is not statutory is the snag. Simply because it is not enshrined anywhere, in so many words, it will be very difficult to break the habit of usage. If, on the other hand, the statutory term "counting agent" is replaced by another statutory term such as "candidate's observer" there is a chance that the new phrase, with its status in law will, as time goes by, replace the present phrase. There is some force in that argument, but I do not pre tend that it is an extremely powerful one.
I would deploy the argument further in terms of the words used and the Oxford Dictionary, and so on. The term "ob server" is used in paragraph 7 (1) of Schedule 8 of the Licensing Act 1964, in relation to a person who watches the counting of votes at licensing polls about Sunday opening in Wales, where the term "counting agent" would not in any case be appropriate because there are no can didates. There was no provision in the 1961 Bill for observers to watch the count, and an amendment was tabled in Committee to provide that scrutineers be


allowed to watch the counting of votes. The then Conservative Government accepted the principle of the Amendment, which was withdrawn to allow a Government Amendment to be tabled on Report. The Government Amendment used the term "observers" instead of "scrutineers." What appeared in the Licensing Act, 1964 was taken as a guide, albeit in a slightly different circumstance.
The problem about the word "scrutiny" is that it has a technical meaning at elections. This is the aspect which I would press most. Archaically, a "scrutiny" was the election itself. But now a "scrutiny" has come to mean an examination of the ballot papers at a stage later than the count—that is, after they have been counted and sealed up by the returning officet—if and when a court order is made for them to be opened for the purpose of deciding whether any votes were cast by a person not enttled to vote or were wrongly counted as good and should be struck off, or wrongly given as bad and should be added.
A scrutiny following a Parliamentary election has not taken place for many years. But it is understood that a scrutiny is occasionally ordered by a court in connection with legal proceedings following a local government election. The scrutiny takes place in the presence of counsel and of counters for the candidate. In the Government's view, the term "scrutineer" had therefore better not be used for persons taking part in the ordinary counting of votes, otherwise confusion may arise.
This is not just prissiness on the part of the Home Office, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West so delicately remarked. But there is a very good point in law that the term "scrutiny" has a meaning all its own in electoral law. It is used in connection with the proceedings after the count and not, as the Amendment would have it, during the count. For this major reason, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. There is a very good legal reason for not accepting them.
Let me suppose that the objection is that the word "observer" means a person who passively watches the votes being counted and does not import the right to speak up about a ballot paper. I looked up the New Oxford Dictionary

and I found that an "observer" is one who not only watches, marks or takes notice, but also one who makes a verbal observation or remark. Incidentally, the New Oxford Dictionary gives as one meaning of "scrutiny"
an official examination of the votes passed at an election in order to eliminate any votes that are invalid and to rectify or confirm the number stated in the return".
I am sympathetic to the views of hon. Members, who are among a band of 630, all of whom know a great deal about elections, but already in electoral law the term "scrutiny" has a meaning all its own. For that reason, I must advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Hogg: I am a little disappointed with the reply of the Under-Secretary of State. I do not wish the Committee to divide on what is basically a question of semantics, because Divisions take time. However, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would, before Report, consider the comment which I propose to make. I was impressed by what the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) said in stating the case for the Amendment. The only point in the hon. Gentleman's reply to which serious attention should be given concerns the word "scrutiny" having a technical meaning in electoral law which is inconsistent with the proposed nomenclature in the Amendment.
That is an argument which can cut both ways. If we are to use this opportunity to get our nomenclature right, there is no reason why, at a later stage, the Government should not substitute another word for that technical meaning such as "examination", or some other word which, on reflection, they might consider to be more suitable. Apart from this purely technical point, I should have vastly preferred the word "scrutineer" to "observer".
I will not ask my hon. Friends to vote on this Amendment; it would be absurd to do so. However, I ask the Government not to take advantage of this abstinence on our part, but to promise to look at the matter again by Report.

Mr. C. Pannell: I, too, am interested in the meaning of words. Neither the workers of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in South Leeds, nor


my workers in West Leeds, would appreciate the force of his argument. "Observer" seems to be a passive word. If the Government had left in the phrase "counting agent", which is hallowed by nearly 50 years of electioneering on my part, I should have known what it was. But hon. Members, and particularly my hon. Friend, must be vigilant about the assumption that all our local people are seized of the fine shades of emphasis which we use here.
I have received the briefs of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I like to go along with the Association when I can. But I must consider these matters with the greatest suspicion. Democratic forms always fall down when we are not sensitive about them. I can imagine town clerks saying," They have altered the law. You are given less significance ".d Observer ", in the fine language of my hon. Friend, means someone less thrusting than a scrutineer or counting agent.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will look at this matter again, but I hope that he will not take it that, since we are not to divide on the Amendment, we accept the idea. I am sure that as a reasonable man he will note the strong feelings which have been expressed and will convey them to his reasonable boss.

Mr. Rees: I will certainly do that. The problem is the meaning in electoral law of "scrutineer" or "scrutiny". I will look at the matter again because my inclination, and I am sure that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, is to meet the wishes of the Committee. What moves me most is not the legal argument, but the point expressed on both sides of the Committee that what we intend is often watered down by the time that it is read in an Act.
I am worried about the implications of changing the word "scrutiny" because of its long historical use in electoral law. I will consider the matter in the spirit which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and my right hon. Friend for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) have put it to me.

Mr. Sharples: In view of the very reasonable assurance of the hon. Gentleman to consider the matter again before

Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move Amend ment 20, in page 9, line 40, at the end to insert 'at any one time'.
Subsection (5,b) refers to the appointment of polling agents at polling stations and limits the number of polling agents able to attend at polling stations to one. Our view is that, as the subsection is drafted, if a candidate wished to keep a polling station covered throughout the period allowed after polling, the person appointed as the polling agent would have to do an uninterrupted spell of 14 or 15 hours outside the polling station.
The duties of the polling agent are clearly laid down in the Second Schedule of the Representation of the People Act, 1949:
Each candidate may before the commencement of the poll appoint a polling agent to attend the polling station for the purpose of detecting personation.
This is an important rô le which should not be under-estimated. It is impossible for anyone to carry out that rô le through out the whole day without relief, and I hope, in the light of what I have said, that the hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Rees: I think that the Amendment is extremely reasonable. As the hon. Gentleman has stated, the job of a polling agent involves him being in the polling booth all day. Polling agents are used in different ways in different parts of the country, but, nevertheless, in law their function is to work in this way, and in the spirit of helping volunteer workers who do such an excellent job for all parties I will look at this matter. I am advised that consequential Amendments would be required in other parts of the Bill, and I will look at that as well.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): The Question is, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. I had understood the hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment, Mr. Gourlay.

Mr. Rees: I think that I am in error here. The simplest thing would be for the Committee to leave it with me because


of the ramifications. I will see that it is put right on Report.

Mr. Sharples: In view of the assurance of the Under-Secretary of State, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Speed: I rise to make a small point on this Clause which I hope the Minister will be able to meet, and which is concerned with agents and the offices of agents in both Parliamentary and local elections.
Subsection (3) is concerned with the office of an election agent for a local government election. I appreciate that the Clause goes further than the 1949 Act where, in Section 57 (2), the office for a local government election agent was much more narrowly drawn than the Clause proposes. Nevertheless, the Clause does not meet the problem that all too often local government boundaries alter, sometimes substantially, before Parliamentary boundaries alter.
I can illustrate this point by giving an example from my own constituency. I know that hard cases make bad law, and this illustrates the point I have in mind. My constituency includes part of the Borough of Tamworth, which is in Staffordshire. Part of my constituency of Meriden is in Warwickshire. If Conservative or Labour councillors are contesting the Borough of Tamworth they would normally wish to have the services of my own or the Labour Party's agents. The neighbouring local authority to Tamworth is the Atherstone Rural District Council, in whose area lives the Labour Party agent and in which her office is situated. Under this Clause she will be unable to act as the election agent and use her office for Labour candidates standing within her constituency for the Borough of Tamworth.
My agent and her office are situated within the Meriden rural district. Similarly, under the Clause, she will be unable to act as election agent and un able to use her office as an office for an election agent for those candidates stand ing for the Borough of Tamworth.
I am sure that this difficulty is encountered in other areas. I suspect that many of our agents have, during the past

few years, been breaking the law in this matter. This should not be investigated too far. It is a small, but important point. The Home Office has come part of the way to improving the 1949 Act, and I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that by a slight Amendment to the Clause he will meet this point, so that Parliamentary election agents will be able to be local authority election agents provided they are within the same Parliamentary constituency.

Mr. R. H. Turton: Will the Minister say why urban districts are referred to and not urban and rural districts? In many cases the office will be in an adjoining road, but not in the same urban district.

Mr. Rees: On the last point, frankly I do not know; I will find out. I will look at this matter in the context of being helpful to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed). As he correctly points out, the purpose of the change in the Clause was to be helpful. It has not gone far enough to be helpful in the case to which he refers and which, I am sure, arises in other parts of the country.
Given the feeling of the Committee, my right hon. Friend and I will look at the matter, and I undertake on Report to bring back a Clause to cover the point; in other words, we will improve what is already an improvement.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

USE OF POLITICAL DESCRIPTIONS IN NOMINATION PAPERS AND BALLOT PAPERS AT PARLIAMENTARY ELEC TIONS

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move Amend-No. 52, in page 10, line 16, after 'elections' insert 'and local government elections'.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With this Amendment the Committee will take also the following Amendments:

No. 56, in page 10, line 15, after 'par liamentary', insert 'and local'.

No. 64, in page 10, line 15, after 'par liamentary', insert 'and local govern ment'.

No. 65, in page 10, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of Clause and add:

(2) A candidate's nomination paper may in clude a political description.
(3) Where a nomination paper includes a political description normally used by a political party or association and where this description does not include the word 'independent a candidate shall not be validly nominated unless there is delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers an authority signed by the secretary of that party or association indicating that the candidate has the support of that party or association.

No. 58, in page 10, line 28, after 'signed', insert:
(a) for parliamentary elections.

No. 59, in page 10, line 29, after 'it', insert:
'and
(b) for local elections, by a person in accordance with the procedure outlined in subsection (6)(c) to this section'.

No. 60, in page 10, line 32, after 'parliamentary', insert 'and local'.

No. 71, in page 10, line 33, leave out 'a single register of political descriptions' and insert:
'a register of political descriptions for each constituency'.

No. 61, in page 10, line 36, after 'parliamentary', insert 'and local'.

No. 72, in page 11, line 3, after 'description', insert:
(c) the persons (identified by name or as holders of a specified office or position) who will provide returning officers at local elections with the names of the local officers of organisations which are affiliated to the national body and who may for the time being authorise local candidates to use the description.

No. 53, in page 12, line 4, at end insert:
(12) No limit shall be placed on the number of persons who may apply for the registration or renewal of, or may be competent to authorise the use of, each political de scription:
Provided that in the case of a political description denoting groups of persons or corporations whose activities take place within a parliamentary constituency, the registrar shall ensure that not more than one registration of the same political description is made for each constituency.

New Clause 4:

(1) For the guidance of voters a notice displaying the purported political descriptions, that is to say the political or other allegiance (if any) which each candidate at the election claims, shall be exhibited at polling stations.
(2) The notice of purported political descriptions shall be exhibited in accordance with the rules set forth in Rule 30 of the Parliamentary election rules and rule 23 of the Scottish local election rules in the representation of the People Act, 1949, as amended.
(3) Nothing in these provisions shall confer immunity on any candidate from the consequences under civil law of false or misleading statements made in his claim and published in the notice of purported de scriptions.
(4) The Returning Officer shall not be held responsible for any such consequence by the mere act of accepting and publishing accurately such claims in the notice of purported descriptions.

No. 73, in page 22, line 34, at end insert:
(d) the persons who are to appear in the register as persons who will provide returning officers at local elections with the names of local officers of organisations which are affiliated to the national body who may for the time being authorise local candidates to use the registered description.

No. 40, in page 37, line 17, at end insert:
25. In rule 30 of the parliamentary elections rules there shall be added the following new subsection:—
'(5) A notice shall be printed in conspicuous characters displaying the purported political or other descriptions of each candidate who claims such a description and shall be exhibited as provided in subsection (4) above, provided that:—

(a) claim for such a description to be displayed shall be made on or before the last day appointed for delivery of nomination papers;
(b) a candidate's name shall appear on the notice of purported political or other descriptions irrespective of whether he claims such description or not;
(c) a purported description shall consist of not more than six words;
(d) in the case of a purported description representing a political or other organisation the printed notice shall, if the candidate so requests, indicate the address of the organisation;
(e) the notice of purported descriptions shall state clearly that such a description indicates the political or other affiliations claimed by the candidate and that no responsibility for the authenticity of these claims is accepted by the returning officer'.

No. 41, in page 41, line 15, at end insert:
35. In rule 23 of the Scottish local elections rules there shall be added the following new subsection:—
'(5) A notice shall be printed in conspicuous characters displaying the purported political or other description of each candidate who claims such a description and shall be exhibited as provided in subsection (4) above, provided that:—

(a) claim for such a description to be displayed shall be made on or before the last day appointed for delivery of nomination papers;
(b) a candidate's name shall appear on the notice of purported political or other descriptions irrespective of whether he claims such description or not;
(c) a purported description shall consist of not more than six words;
(d) in the case of a purported description representing a political or other organisation the printed notice shall, if the candidate so requests, indicate the address of the organisation;
(e) the notice of purported descriptions shall state clearly that such a description indicates the political or other affiliations claimed by the candidate and that no responsibility for the authenticity of these claims is accepted by the returning officer'.

Mr. Sharples: By your selection of Amendments, Mr. Gourlay, it is evident that it has been the intention of the Chair that we should have a fairly broadly-based debate on the question of party labels. This gives an opportunity to discuss both the scheme which has been put forward by the Government and the alternative scheme which has been put forward by my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends on this side of the House.
Amendment No. 52 is a paving Amendment for the remainder of the debate, and it is our intention that consideration of any scheme should go far wider than is indicated in the Amendment.
There have been three recent debates on party labels. There was the debate on the Government's White Paper when we discussed this in outline. There was the debate on Second Reading when a considerable amount of time was given to discussion on party labels.
It is fair to say that there is in intention a broad element of agreement on all sides of the Committee. Everyone feels that such a scheme would be a convenience and a help to electors and enable them to know the party which a candidate says that he represents. Men-

tion has been made of various difficulties which are caused, particularly at local elections, where the names of a large number of candidates appear on the ballot paper.
There are certain broad criteria which should be met as far as possible by any such scheme. First, if we are to have a scheme for indicating the parties which candidates represent at the time of voting, the scheme must be applicable to all forms of election. It is probably more important that it should be applicable to local government elections where difficulties are more likely to arise than to General Elections. Therefore, the first criterion is that it must be applicable to all forms of elections.
When I come to the second criterion, what I have to say is more from the standpoint of my own party, but it is none the less important. Any scheme should take into account the existing structures of the main political parties. The Government scheme does not do that for the Conservative Party, and I shall say why in more detail later in my speech.
The third of the criteria is that, although hon. Members on both sides have emphasised the growing importance of the system of political parties and the influence that the party which a candidate represents has on those who vote for him or her, so far as possible any scheme should not derogate from the responsibility of the individual candidate. One of our fundamental beliefs concerns the responsibility of the individual candidate at the time of a General Election, not only to those who support him in his own party, once he is elected, all those who are electors or who reside in his constituency.
I know that, after the count has been declared, we all say something to the effect that we will do our best for everyone irrespective of the way in which he or she voted, but I believe that those words mean something and should be seen to mean something.
The next criterion which any scheme should allow for is a change in the structure of politics. It must be flexible enough to be able to do so. During the last 50 years, we have seen a major change in the structure of politics with the rise of the Labour Party. It may be


that, over the next 50 years, we shall see similar changes in our political structure. Therefore, any scheme must be flexible enough to allow for such changes to take place. In addition, it must be flexible enough to allow for the views of minorities and splinter groups to be represented properly and fairly when election time comes.
Finally, there is the criterion which the Government have very much in mind and which I support. Whatever we do in designing a scheme to allow for party labels to be attached to candidates, we must not involve returning officers in making political decisions. That has probably been an overriding consideration in the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in drawing up their scheme, and it is the only criterion that I have enunciated which the Government scheme goes out of its way to meet. It seems to be designed not to apply to all the others. It is too elaborate to be applied to local government elections, and it is for that very good reason that the Home Secretary has not felt himself able to apply the scheme to local government elections, where it is most needed.
When we come to consider how it can be applied to the existing structures of the main political parties. I cannot, of course, speak on behalf of the other main parties, but I can speak on behalf of the Conservative Party. As it is in the Bill, the scheme could not be applied to the Conservative Party and, without developing a political argument, I will try to say briefly why that is so.
5.15 p.m.
In the Conservative Party, we have no written constitution and no rules for constituency associations. Each association is separate and autonomous, although they are all bound together by membership of the national union of the party. If the scheme were to be applied as it is at the moment, each constituency association would have to register itself, because there is no central endorsement of candidates by Central Office. I do not want to go into this in detail, because I think that the Home Secretary understands the point and appreciates our difficulties.
In the scheme put forward by the Government, there is an element of inflexibility. It will make more difficult the development of minority parties and

splinter groups. It will be impossible for candidates to indicate the reasons why they wish to stand in opposition to an official candidate although, broadly speaking, they may be in agreement with the main theme of his party. I say that as one who has quite a lot to do with the organisation of the Conservative Party, and I can see that it is a matter which may count against all three major parties.
The Government scheme is one for the registration of parties much more than for the application of party labels. As I said on Second Reading, by its system of registration, with each candidate needing the official endorsement of the party that he purports to represent and by that having to be done in statutory form, we should not underestimate the enormous power that it gives to the central machines of the major parties. I appreciate the tremendous difficulties involved in trying to find a viable scheme—

Mr. Denis Coe: Would the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by "power" when he talks about giving more power to the central machines.

Mr. Sharples: In the Conservative Party, as in all parties, there is no statutory reason why a person in dispute with the central machine of his party should not stand as a candidate representing that party, provided that he has the approval of his local association. Certainly, that is the position in the Conservative Party.
Once we make it an obligatory and statutory requirement that a candidate must have the endorsement of the central organisation of his party before he can stand as a representative of that party, it gives greatly increased power to the central organisation compared with that which exists at present.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): The hon. Gentleman is stating the position quite clearly. But is he right about that last point? It would be open to the Conservative Party to authorise its local officer, if it so wished, to give the written form to the candidate. So there would be no reservation of power in that sense to the central party.

Mr. Sharples: Yes. But the central organisation of the Conservative Party does not have that power at present. If


it is to delegate a power, it has to have power in the first place. At the moment—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman understands—there is no power to be delegated to constituency associations. Each association is autonomous in its own right. This is the difficulty facing us.
I do not underestimate the difficulties in finding a satisfactory solution. Mr. Speaker's Conference considered this question in some detail and was unable to find a satisfactory solution. In the Amendments to which I have referred we have put forward what we believe could be an alternative scheme. Whether it is viable, or whether there are legal objections to it, perhaps we might hear later from the Government Front Bench. But the essence of the scheme is set out in new Clause 4 and in Amendments Nos. 40 and 41, which are Amendments to the Schedule.
The basis of the scheme is that it allows a notice to be exhibited at the polling station giving the purported party which a candidate represents. It makes it clear, first, that the returning officer is not responsible for the description which is put up. Secondly, it makes it clear that the description to which the candidate lays claim must be notified on or before the last day for the handing in of nomination papers.
We have included in this scheme a limitation on the number of words which may be used by a candidate to describe himself. That limitation is six words. We thought that six words would be sufficient for a candidate to use any existing or foreseen description of political party without enabling him to go into the merits or demerits of developing his case or making a political point.
The first advantage of the scheme—and I admit there may be disadvantages, which will no doubt be pointed out to us from the Government Front Bench—is its simplicity. It could be applied equally to local government elections or to General Elections. It remains firmly the responsibility of candidates to indicate which party they represent. The scheme is flexible. It does not tie the existing structure of the political parties and it allows for the development of splinter groups and for those representing minority interests to describe themselves as they will.
The alternative which we might consider is possibly allowing candidates, without a system of registration, to have the names of their parties on the ballot papers. I have given a lot of consideration to this matter. The real difficulty is that the rules regarding ballot papers are clearly laid down in the 1949 Act. The ballot paper in some ways is looked upon as a legal document. Certainly the conditions under which it is issued are clearly and forcibly laid down in the Act.
The difficulty about allowing candidates to have the names of the parties on the ballot papers is that it would be bound to involve the returning officer in making political decisions of one kind or another even though this, in many cases, might be wholly marginal.

Mr. Tony Gardner: Perhaps I might put a suggstion to the hon. Gentleman. If I persuaded four of my friends to seek to nominate themselves as Conservative candidates in the hon. Gentleman's constituency at the next election, his only redress would be a lengthy civil action against these individual candidates, by which time the confusion would have happened.

Mr. Sharples: Nothing could be done about it if that happened now. However, there is a difference between having the name of the candidate and his party displayed inside the polling station, or even outside the polling station, to remind the elector and having it written on the ballot paper. That is why we have chosen for our scheme the idea of simply having the notice displayed in the polling station.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: What is the difference between having the party label outside the polling station and the party label on the ballot paper? I can see that there are difficulties in trying to decide who should have what labels, and that is what this scheme is about. But the implication behind the scheme is that the party has the right to copyright of its own label and it is not up to any individual candidate to select which label he wants. Once we get over that difficulty, what is the difference between having the party label on the ballot paper or outside the polling station?

Mr. Sharples: The difference is that in our scheme the onus is on the candidate. It is for him to say which party he purports to represent. There is no onus on anyone else and no discretion in anyone else. No one is able to question the party which he purports to represent. If we put that on the ballot paper I think we will probably get into greater difficulties.
I appreciate—and, I think, the House appreciates—that this is a very difficult question indeed. It may be that we have not found the right solution. But the scheme outlined in the Bill, for the reasons which I have outlined, is quite unworkable. We could not possibly work this scheme. Because it can only be applied to Parliamentary elections, not to local government elections, we believe that it would be better not to have it, despite all the disadvantages that there may be. To introduce a scheme which can only be applied to Parliamentary elections would, from our point of view, be unworkable and undesirable.

Mr. Coe: I apologise for interrupting yet again, but the hon. Gentleman does not appear to have dealt with Amendment No. 53. Will he explain why he is putting forward that Amendment, which apparently accepts registration, in view of what he has said?

Mr. Sharples: The reason for putting down that Amendment is to cover the position of the autonomous constituency associations.
If the Government force their scheme through, we shall have to have some arrangement under which each constituency association is able to register its title. This will be an enormous administrative difficulty. It will mean each title having to be registered separately, and a separate fee having to be paid for each registration. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
I have sought to move the Amendment in the spirit of the two sides of the House together trying to find a solution. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will respond in kind. From our point of view the Government scheme is unworkable, and if the Government persist with it we shall have to divide the House against it.

Mr. Coe: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 10, line 15, after 'parlia mentary' insert 'and local'.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Only one Amendment can be moved at a time. We are discussing the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples). The hon. Member can discuss his Amendment with that one.

Mr. Coe: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) in urging the Government to ensure that any revision which enables the description of a candidate to appear on the ballot paper applies in the case of local elections as well. During the Second Reading debate, in reply to a question I asked, my right hon. Friend said that his mind was not closed, and that he was anxious to see whether some workable scheme could be introduced to ensure that that happened. I concede that the problem is greater in local elections, and my pleasure is by no means diminished at finding that my right hon. Friend has accepted the principle of having party descriptions on ballot papers in Parliamentary elections. It has been said that the change in Parliamentary elections is of minimal importance, but I believe that this is not so on many occasions, and that recognising political parties in the constitution for the first time is a very welcome step.
There are four reasons why my hon. Friends and I believe that local elections should be brought within the ambit of the Bill; first, because of the size of the areas with which we are dealing in local government and the number of candidates involved; secondly, because of the wasted votes which occur in multi-member wards or areas; thirdly, because of the influence of the alphabetical order on the voting intentions of electors; fourthly, because of the similarity of names in local elections.
I know that it is being said that once the Maude Committee recommendation of having single member areas in local elections, as there are in Parliamentary elections, is brought into being the difficulty of similar names will disappear, that we will in effect have a Parliamentary system, but there is still the likelihood of more candidates standing at local elections even if there are single member areas.
On the question of size, if the recommendations which are likely to come from the Royal Commission on local government are carried out, it seems possible that the areas of local government will be much larger than they are now, and this will be another reason for making the suggested change.
In the London Borough of Bromley, where at the moment four candidates stand with an electorate of 200,000, the change would mean that we would be electing one councillor for every 50,000 electors. I suggest that under that sort of circumstance, which is likely to become common over the country, people will vote for the party rather than for the man. They cannot possibly know all the individuals who are standing for election. Thus, if the Maud Committee's recommendations and the reconstruction of local government are carried out, it will be even more important at local elections for party labels to appear on ballot papers.
There would be no wasted votes if the Maud Committee recommendation was carried out, but, if we look at the situation which existed in 1967 during the G.L.C. elections, we find that there were up to 10,000 wasted votes because members of the public were not sure of the four candidates whom they were supposed to support. Consequently, they did not use their votes properly.
I come to consider next the question of the alphabetical order of candidates. This problem is just as likely to occur in a local election as in a general election, although the difference will depend on the number of candidates. An interesting piece of research was done by A. J. Allen in the spring 1967 edition of Parliamentary Affairs, which suggested that the alphabetical order had some relevance in the constituency of Reading. This is a problem. I admit that it is not a major one, but it would help if electors were able to see the political affiliations of the candidates.
The fourth and last reason concerns this vexed question of candidates having similar or the same names. This will always be a problem in both Parliamentary and local elections. The extreme case of this occurred last year during the election in the G.L.C. Borough of Wandsworth. There were two candidates,

"Pritchard" and "Prichard". There was a discrepancy of 6,000 votes. The Liberal candidate, Pritchard, got 6,000 votes more than his Liberal colleagues did, while the Labour candidate, Prichard, received 6,000 votes fewer than his colleagues. That was a massive turnover of votes which no opinion poll could recognise. All the other candidates did extremely well.
Hon. Members may have seen the rather plaintive letter in January of this year in the Daily Telegraph from a Conservative Parliamentary candidate who said:
I was recently adopted as prospective Conservative Parliamentary candidate … At that time my surname was Lewis, but a few weeks later the local Liberal party adopted their prospective candidate with the same surname … the only course of action we could take was to change my name by deed poll, by hyphening my last two names, which has now been done.
and his name appeared at the bottom as Richard Devonald-Lewis. It is a bit hard on someone when he has to change his name because he is a candidate.
For all those reasons it is important that we should extend the scheme to local elections. We have still to see the Maud Committee recommendations implemented. In the meantime, I believe that confusion will get much greater, and I think that even if the Maude recommendations are adopted the confusion will be great, but they could be avoided to some extent by the use of descriptions. That is why we have suggested changes which will enable the Bill to refer also to local elections.
We recognise that having done that, we have to find a procedure which can be grafted on to the existing registration procedure outlined in the Bill for Parliamentary elections. We take the view that this can be done by adding extra names to the National Register of people who will have the responsibility of providing the returning officers at local elections with the names of the chairmen and the secretaries of local parties which are affiliated to the nationally registered parties. The local returning officer would then be able to satisfy himself, without any personal responsibility, that the local candidates who are authenticated as being able to use a registered description have presented an authority signed by one of the people notified to him.
In practice, this would mean that a small party or association which was registered nationally could put up candidates at a local election and their authenticity could be signified by one of the national officers, provided that local elections were included in the Bill.
I accept that there are difficulties over the major political parties, but I would envisage that, certainly in the case of the Labour Party, the job of providing the names of local candidates to the returning officers would be that of regional officers of the national party. In this way, we would, I believe, be able to do it without creating excessive administrative tasks—

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I hope that the hon. Member would not restrict this registration procedure to organisations which are affiliated to national bodies, since otherwise he would exclude the anti-Hogg candidates about whom we have heard so much.

Mr. Coe: I am sure that the hon. Member can argue that better than I. So far as I am concerned, the anti-Hogg candidates can have a field day if they like.
There may be local disputes in the parties, as sometimes happens, in which case I suggest that, as the local affiliated body is allowed by the central registered party to use its label, it would be up to the latter to adjudicate between disputants. If it did not, the local party would not be able to use the label. That seems the way out of this difficulty, to apply the national register on a local basis.
The Opposition claim that this process would move towards concentration of power in the central party. I do not accept that. I do not believe, for instance, that a national party, whether the Conservative Party or my own, would be able to threaten a local party. I do not believe that a national party would refuse to authenticate a particular use of a label if the candidate were not accepted. That is not a particularly creditable argument.
I believe that the Opposition have gone a long way themselves by putting down Amendment No. 53, which at least accepts the idea of registration, even if with the suggestion that it should be on

a constituency basis which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam recognised, I think, would cause immense difficulties.
Their new Clause 4 is surely a non-starter. I have twice introduced Private Member's Bills on this matter and have always believed that this fear of confusion of abuse is overstated. I do not believe that there would be anything like the abuse which is so often described. Nevertheless, if there are difficulties, they must be catered for, which is why we suggest registration.
I cannot see the logic behind new Clause 4. If the hon. Member is saying that it should be the local candidate's responsibility to put forward his own purported affiliation, I cannot see the argument for the ballot paper being sacrosanct. There is no reason why its form should not be changed. If the Opposition are going that far. they might as well go the whole hog—I am sorry, the whole way—and accept the idea of descriptions on the ballot paper as well.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friends for their efforts in this matter and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can give some hopeful and helpful response along these lines. Descriptions on ballot papers are accepted in many countries and the extension of this principle to local government would be an extension of democracy. It is in that spirit that I have taken part in this debate.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Turton: May I correct one statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) during his very clear speech? He said that Mr. Speaker's Conference had been unable to put forward a satisfactory scheme. What the conference reported to the House is that
Reference to a candidate's party should not be permitted on nomination papers and, consequently, on ballot papers.
They reached that conclusion after considerable discussion and with no dissenting voice. That is as far as it can be taken under our present rules. It is unfortunate, when Mr. Speaker's Conference clearly said, without anyone giving a contrary opinion, that this was not desirable, that it should be included in the Bill. I therefore approach this with a degree of suspicion and hostility.
The most important thing is that a Member comes here representing a constituency and not a party. It is true that the vast majority of the voters who support him probably support his political creed, but this does not apply to all and anything which at all diminishes a Member's responsibility to his constituents as a whole, instead of just a section, is to be deplored. I am sure that a number of the Home Secretary's constituents in Cardiff vote for him, although they are not of the same political creed, and I believe that that is true of all of us. This proposal would strengthen the party caucus against the individual Member's representations.
Secondly, it is very important that the ballot paper should be as simple as possible. If the party name is added, there will be many more spoiled papers. Many ardent Conservatives or Labour Party members, when faced with the name of the rival party will, I imagine, suitably embellish their paper. Hon. Members have probably noticed such embellishments. I can think of several which I could not repeat because they would not be Parliamentary expressions.
How is the Home Secretary's scheme to work? Even if I believed, with the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe) in the desirability of the party label being added, I could not conceive of a more complicated or unworkable scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam put this extremely ably from his position as vice-chairman of the party.
One can consider the matter from a different standpoint by studying what has happened in the past. How will this scheme work? Will two candidates be allowed to use the same party label? There have been occasions, and they will no doubt occur in future—this has occurred to all parties; it is certainly likely to happen to the Labour Party in a few constituencies at the next General Election—when two candidates wish to support the same political creed in opposition to each other. The Home Secretary has suggested that the use of a registered name should be allowed to only one candidate. Will not this be interference by the party caucus at the centre in what is happening in the constituencies?

Mr. Callaghan: Not necessarily from the centre. It could occur peripherally. It is open to, for example, a local Conservative association to register its name with the Registrar. It would then be for the association to decide whether or not to support the candidates in question.

Mr. Turton: Would it be possible for two candidates who oppose each other in a constituency to use the same registered description on the nomination paper?

Mr. Callaghan: I would have thought that that would be very unlikely. In any event, it would be for the local Conservative association in this case to decide whom it wished to support as its officially registered candidate. The other man might decide to register himself as something else. He would not be able to call himself "Conservative" if the local Conservative association had decided that he was not its candidate or standard bearer, assuming that it was the local association which had decided to register.

Mr. Turton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting the position so clearly. I suggest that it will lead to undesirable complications, as hon. Members will appreciate.
My main attack on the proposed scheme rests on the question of flexibility. We have recently been reading in The Times and, I gather, in some other organs, of the comparison between today and 1931. I take the Committee back to 1931 when we left the Parliamentary buildings at the end of July. Nobody thought that there would be any requirement for fresh political labels. However, by the time of the election hon. Members on both sides were using different political labels.
If, in 1968 or 1969, there occurred a repetition of the events of 1931 and the same timetable prevailed, it would not be possible, by my understanding of the Schedule, to achieve the necessary registrations. If there were an autumn election one would have to register one's political description before the end of June, and I do not believe that sufficient time would be available.
Crises occur suddenly in the political life of this country and the electoral law must be sufficiently flexible to take them into account. Eventualities occur. There may suddenly be a coalition. I recall the


days when the Liberal Party was split in the way that parties do split—the Liberal Party in particular—and when there were Samuelite Liberals and Lloyd George Liberals. Equally, the Labour Party was split and there were those who followed Ramsay Macdonald and those who did not. Any system that does not provide for that sort of emergency is bound to be wrong and that is why I condemn the complicated scheme which is proposed.
I hold that Mr. Speaker's Conference was right on this matter. Unfortunately, I am precluded from giving the reasons why. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) was constantly asking us to state the reasons and I think that it is generally agreed now that it would have been better if we were able to state them. What I can say is that we discussed this matter at length at the Conference, some of us sympathetically, and we came to the conclusion that the course now being proposed by the Government should not be recommended by the Conference.
Considering the alternative proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, I do not think that it is necessary to have this information published in polling stations. After all, we have got over this difficulty before and I am sure that the electors are able to distinguish between candidates. At one time we had two Kings fighting the constituency of Southampton, and the right one was elected. There have been times when a number of Hugheses have fought Anglesey, and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite feel that on the last occasion the right one—the present Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—was chosen.
The electors are not as stupid as the Government make them out to be and the more responsibility they are given the better will be Parliamentary democracy. I therefore beg the Home Secretary to think again on this whole question of party labels, and particularly on the complicated machinery involved in the operation of the Clause.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: One would gather from the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) that the debate has considerably widened in scope. The whole question of whether or not party labels should be

allowed on ballot papers has been raised, and, while I welcome the Government proposal, I am, like my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe), concerned mainly with extending the system to cover local elections. I appreciate the many difficulties that are involved, but I cannot understand why a method cannot be worked out to include the use of party labels in local as well as in Parliamentary elections. My main object in making this appeal is to encourage more people to go to the polls. If encouragement is necessary, it is far more necessary at local elections, as the polling figures reveal.
It has been suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite that instead of having party labels on ballot papers, they should be shown in posters either outside or inside polling stations. From my observation of local and Parliamentary elections, the electorate do not read posters when they go to vote. Only if this information is placed on ballot papers will it have the necessary effect.
All hon. Members have had experience of the attitude of voters at election time, either as scrutineers or observers. I like the term "scrutineer" for counting observers because it covers the job admirably. We use this term in my constituency and I hope that the Home Secretary will consider this matter further. I agree with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that the electors are not stupid. The fact that they returned the Labour Party at the last General Election proves that they have plenty of common sense.
6.0 p.m.
I am reminded of an elector who told me that he had voted in a local election. I said, "Thank you very much". "But," he said, "I didn't make any mark on the ballot paper." I asked why not, and he said, "I didn't know who the Labour candidates were, so, to make sure that I did not vote for someone else, I put a blank paper in the ballot box."
My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich has spoken about rather strange permutations at elections, particularly local government elections where there are a number of candidates. It is difficult for candidates whose surnames have an initial that puts them low on the list. I have suffered in local


government elections for that reason. More interesting are the strange permutations among parties. Some hon. Members opposite would be horrified to be coupled with the one Communist who puts up in an election. The Communist would know that he would capture some of the votes from people who are not sure which party is putting up which candi date.
In my constituency there are some wards which elect two, three or four candidates. I do not suppose it happens now, but not long ago in the Borough of Bethnal Green there were large wards which returned 10 councillors. Since there were four parties, each of whom put up candidates, the electors had to choose among 40 candidates. Something should be done to make it easier for local government electors to cast their votes in the way they intend and without any disrespect to the personality of the candidate. I recognise the importance of the personality of the candidate, but I am not kidding myself—I do not know if that is a Parliamentary term—

Mr. John Mendelson: Why not?

Mr. Shaw: I am not kidding myself by believing that any individual, myself included, has the ability by his own personality to win elections. Every hon. Member must know that he is here because he represents a party and that his personality has simply a marginal effect.
I ask my right hon. Friend to realise the difficulties and to take into consideration the scheme put forward by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Lubbock: The attribution by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw), of great intelligence to the electorate for having returned the Labour Party to power in 1966, reminds me of the story of Frank Owen, who was elected to this House in 1929. He used to say, having lost his seat a few years thereafter, "In 1929, the wise, far-seeing people of Hereford returned me to Parliament, but in 1931 the bloody fools chucked me out".
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has referred to 1931 and to the difficulty that this new Clause and the associated Schedule would

present to splinter groups at the time of an election. Registrations take place on only two occasions in the year and applications have to be submitted two months in advance. No doubt that would cause some difficulty in a year of fluidity such as 1931, but I have no recollection of that because I was only three years old at the time. In those circumstances, the difficulty could be solved by the candidates not using political descriptions. They would be in the same position as we are in at the moment and would not put party labels on ballot papers.
They would be able to explain that they belonged to the Labour, Liberal or Conservative Party. Any candidate who called himself "National" would have to put that in his speeches and in his election address. Because of the pressure of time he would not be able to put it on the ballot paper. However, I do not think that the question of fluidity is so important. It has happened only once and, in spite of the rumours which we see in the papers every week-end, it is not likely in the near future. Before the suggestion put forward by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), I did not think that there was any question of a coalition being formed. That likelihood was removed from my mind when I saw that he was advocating it. The serious point raised by hon. Members in the debate is whether or not we should extend this scheme, or something similar, to local elections where it is of far greater importance. For those of us who represent seats in the Greater London area the experience has been that we do not need the registration of parties on the ballot paper so much in Parliamentary elections—although it may be convenient when a candidate comes into a constituency for the first time—as in local elections.
When there are 12 or more names on the ballot paper it is confusing to the electorate, the more so because in Greater London Council elections we have not the same kind of political propaganda as there is in General Elections. One can reach polling day with 30 per cent. of the electorate not knowing that the election is on, let alone knowing who the candidates are. Those who go to the polling station and are confronted with a list of names of at least 12 people, and


sometimes more with independents and splinter candidates, are utterly confused. We have had an example quoted of two candidates named Pritchard in the same G.L.C. ward. One had 6,000 more votes and the other lost 6,000 votes because of the confusion which was created.
Even if the Home Secretary cannot extend this scheme to local government elections—I recognise the difficulties which he pointed out on Second Reading—he should consider whether it is possible to use the scheme for Greater London Council elections. We in London face a situation in which we shall have elections in 1970 on the old basis of multi-member constituencies and no machinery designed to cope with that situation. That is most unfortunate because, if one does not accept the ideal to which we shall be coming later concerning Greater London, the intention is that the area should be divided into single-member electoral districts coinciding with Parliamentary constituencies. I cannot see that coming about in time for the 1970 Greater London Council elections. There will be the same confusion then as there has been in the past.
I do not accept the claim made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) that the scheme proposed by the Home Secretary is unworkable. Obviously, it is workable. The registration of political parties is a necessary concomitant of the use of labels on ballot papers. However, the display of notices in polling stations is not the answer. On Second Reading, I pointed out that, if it is to be left to any person to use the label "Conservative", "Labour", or "Liberal" in a notice displayed in the polling station, several people are likely to use the same label; and that will cause even greater confusion.
The hon. Gentleman said that he does not think that this would happen. As soon as an outsider knew that he was entitled to have his name displayed in this way, it would encourage many people to say, "If I am allowed to have a free notice displayed in the polling station alleging that I am a Conservative candidate", or "a Labour Party candidate", "I will take advantage of this procedure and have my name so displayed". Far from there being only a few such contests as we have had in recent years, there would be many.
There was a by-election at Dorset, South a few years ago, with two Conservative Party candidates. One of them was in favour of the Common Market. The other was against it. In that election it was fairly clear to the voters what the issues were. If at that time it had been possible for any person to have his name displayed on a notice in the polling station as being a Conservative, there might have been many fringe candidates who had nothing to do with the Conservative Party. This is a point which the hon. Gentleman has not taken into account.
On the other hand, registration, which obtains in many other countries, including Germany, would remove confusion. I do not think that the element of control by the political parties is anything like as serious a matter as some hon. Gentlemen seem to fear. Somebody must be responsible for saying who is entitled to use a label, but, as the Home Secretary pointed out in an intervention, this does not need to increase the power of the political parties centrally. It could be, if it were so decided, that the constituencies would be free in this respect and not subject to the control of the party whips, the central committee, or the party secretary. This matter, I think rightly, is left to the discretion of the parties in the Bill.
For that reason, I am in favour of the proposals in the Bill as far as they go, but I appeal to the Home Secretary to consider, before Report, whether he could not extend the machinery which is provided for at least to the Greater London Council elections.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

6.15 p.m.

Mr. C. Pannell: On the grounds of pure utility I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would argue that the proposal to brand Parliamentary candidates adds much to the electoral process. In one election, parts of my constituency declared a 90 per cent. ballot. Such things have happened elsewhere. Some years ago they ran out of ballot papers in Coventry, South when there was a 95 per cent. poll. The fact that the register is 85 per cent. right shows that we are most sophisticated electorate in the world.
To be fair to my right hon. Friend, he does not base his argument on that. He is


a good party man and he thinks that it is a good idea to associate the party with the candidate. I do not object to that very much, because I hope that I am as good a party man as my right hon. Friend is.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Molton (Mr. Turton) suggested that there was almost an odious connotation between a Member of Parliament and his party. I am rather proud of my association. I have no doubt that I speak for most of my hon. Friends when I say that I owe the Labour Party far more than it owes me. I am very conscious of the fact that I would not be here but for the devoted work of people who broadly agree with the sort of things I stood for. I am sure that this is true of hon. Members opposite. I have said before that, if I am ever moved by anything, it is by the number of people who, on election day, come in and out of the committee room, because I wonder at their selfless devotion.
In any number of seats he who gets the selection conference gets the seat. In certain places he who is adopted as the Conservative candidate gets the seat. This is now true of the Labour candidate in some parts of the country. I do not think that this necessarily weakens the representative type of Member. Since 1964, hon. Members on this side have asserted themselves to a great extent. The Whips are not what they used to be. Many years ago I was speaking rather informally to that famous Chief Whip James Stuart when a young Conservative came up and listened. James Stuart said, "That is the Lobby". I know what he meant.

Mr. Mendelson: That is not what he said at all.

Mr. Pannell: I know.
The Home Secretary thinks that the balance of advantage is with this pro position. On Mr. Speaker's Conference I was one of those who saw no advan tage in the Parliamentary scheme. It is largely what happened in Greater London which has converted me to thinking that it should be done in local government. I cannot think of any case where the will of the electorate nationally has been thwarted by the absence of party labels. I think that the will of the electorate has been thwarted in many

cases because of the absence of party labels in local government elections.
Where there are nine or 12 candidates—somebody has mentioned the possi- bility of 40—there must be some way of overcoming this difficulty. In one General Election there were three candi dates named "Hughes", in Anglesey. The Welsh found no difficulty in placing them in the right order. I can remem ber a long-standing Tory named "Edwards", in Walthamstow. At the last moment the local party thought that it would be a good idea to put up somebody named "Edwards", and the original Edwards was beaten by three votes. Stratagems such as this come into it.
There is the association of ideas between local government and national Government. Any number of people lost their seats at the last local elections not because they were bad councillors, but because they were victims of the general swing against the Labour Party. The case is overwhelmingly in favour of doing this in local government rather than in national politics. It is inconsistent to do it in the one case and not in the other. It is logical to carry the proposition on.
There is not much difficulty about party labels. We do not have much difficulty about identifying people here. The proposal could be easily implemented. We will get used to the idea as we go along. If we are not to have this in local government, I wonder why it is necessary to have it in the Bill at all.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), I think that the Clause puts the thing the wrong way round. If there is a case for party labels at all, it is infinitely stronger in respect of local government elections than of Parliamentary elections, for the obvious reason that there are far more candidates at local elections. I remember seeing a ballot paper at the last G.L.C. election with 18 names on it. It is usual at a Parliamentary election to have no more than five names, or more than two or three really serious candidates. Therefore, if there is a case for it, it is a case which the Clause does not meet. The Clause goes, on the other hand, into the Parliamentary field, and I am very sceptical about it.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, West that our electorate is fairly sophisticated nowadays, having a good idea of how it wants to vote, and it is not necessary to take this further step to assist the electorate in its work. I cannot help recalling how a previous Government, with the highest of intentions, suggested closing the public houses on election day, and the late Lord Birkenhead, then Sir F. E. Smith, observed," Vox populi, vox dei —but it speaks with a hiccough unless the right hon. Gentleman takes the proper precautions".
I suspect that that is the sort of thing which the Home Secretary has in mind to do here, and I regard it as unnecessary. Not only is it unnecessary; it is harmful. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) about the effect on people wishing to vote for the candidate, as some still do, rather than the party. I do not agree with the hon. Member opposite who said that this is an affair of the parties and candidates do not matter. One cannot study the record of the last few elections without noticing that some Members survived against thetidebecause, very often, of their personal qualities and the work they had done for their constituencies. They survived although others, if I may say so, had been submerged with the tide.
There are people—I am sure that this will apply particularly to the sitting Member—who are prepared to vote for the individual, but who, if presented with a ballot paper on which, against the name which they know and like, there appears the name of a party which they hate, would be much less likely to vote in that way.
I should not regard that as a good thing. The personal support for the good local Member who has done his best for the area is one of the valuable features of political life under our constitution, and I should regard the change proposed by the Government as a step turning us more and more towards the American presidential set-up, with the contest decided by the party leaders on television, and diminishing regard for the quality of the service which an hon. Member gives to his own constituents. I do not wish to exaggerate, but I am

sure that it would work in that way, and diminish to some degree the number of voters who are prepared to vote for the man even though they hate his party.
The Home Secretary obligingly intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton to point out what would happen if more than one candidate wished to use the same political label. The right hon. Gentleman explained the Clause with complete clarity. The outcome would rest on whether a particular party functionary, whether at the centre or on delegation to the constituency, was prepared, so to speak, to certify the candidate as entitled to the particular trade description. That has an unpleasantly reminiscent ring of the "dog licence" speech, does it not? Frankly, I do not like it.
There is more than one case in our recollection, and there will be more than one at the next election, of two people genuinely and sincerely wishing to fight as Labour or Conservative candidates in the same constituency. It is a situation which may well arise, for example, in Pembroke. It is one which has developed in history from time to time.
I recall the days of the Asquithian Liberal and the Lloyd Georgian Liberal; either would have died rather than admit that the other was the true Liberal. The House may recall one of the more entertaining of Sir Alan Herbert's "Misleading Cases" of a foolish woman who left in her will a bequest to the Liberal Party, after which it was found that 99 applicants genuinely applied for payment of the bequest.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. Gentleman know what happened to the bequest? I should like it now.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenfer: I am sorry to have to break it to the hon. Gentleman. It will sound tactless, but he brought it on himself. It was held that a lady who could leave such a bequest was of unsound mind and incapable of making a valid will. I was trying to spare the hon. Gentleman.
Why should any functionary of a party have the monopoly of the party name? Why should not a sitting Member who falls out with his local association, which does not wish to readopt him, but who


has great local support stand with the same political label as he has used at umpteen previous elections? I do not see why any party functionary—I say this in the presence of the Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party—should deprive me or anyone else of the right to stand under the political label which I believe in and which I wish to adopt.
One of the advantages of the scheme proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) in new Clause No. 4—I do not necessarily go the whole way with him—is that it does leave the choice of designation to the candidate. The phrase used is, "purported political descriptions". I submit that that is right.
I put a further difficulty to the Home Secretary. What happens when there are two organisations in a constituency each claiming to be the proper exponent of the particular political faith? This has happened before. The Home Secretary may say that, if the question is left to the central party, the central party has to choose. However, if the central party, taking what I regard as the more civilised view, delegates the matter to local level, then, presumably, the unfortunate registrar has to decide which of two sets of competing people represent the true faith. For example, what would happen in Pem- broke, where, I understand, this is a distinct possibility and the matter has already been the subject of litigation over the party's property?
Is it not wrong to leave an official, in this case the registrar, the decision on which party organisation is entitled to give the certificate necessary if a can didate is so to describe himself on the ballot paper?
I leave this point also with the Government. Subsection (2) provides that it is not compulsory to use party labels. My guess, however, is that if this scheme is adopted it will become morally compulsorily, since it will be difficult for someone not to give a description when everyone else does. Will this not cause difficulty in certain special situations? What about Mr. Speaker? When Mr. Speaker stands for re-election he usually stands not on a party designation, but as Mr. Speaker, seeking re-election.
I recall that, although our present Speaker. I am glad to say, was not opposed by my party at the last election,

Speakers in recent experience—I think that this happened to Mr. Speaker's predecessor—have been opposed in their constituency when standing for re-election. How are they to describe themselves? I do not think that "Mr. Speaker seeking re-election" is a party designation which could be used. It would be grossly improper.

Mr. Lubbock: Why could it not be used?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is certainly not a party designation. In very essence, it is no such thing.

Mr. Lubbock: It could be a registered description.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is Mr. Speaker alone solemnly to apply to the registrar for a designation as "Mr. Speaker seeking re-election"?

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentle-man is putting the matter very fairly, but he overlooks that there is no mention of parties in the Bill or the Schedule. It speaks only of a description. Mr. Speaker would not have to register as a member of a party. He would give a registered description of himself if he chose to do so.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But, under sub section (3), that is what Mr. Speaker cannot do. He must produce the certificate of an official or functionary, and who is that to be?
That may be an exceptional case, but there are others of people who may well not wish for a designation. Yet they will be put at some electoral disadvantage when people standing against them use such designations. Though I entirely support the suggestion in subsection (2) that the designations be not made compulsory, I fear that that does not mean very much, because they would tend to be so.
Therefore, I suggest that the Home Secretary drops the Clause. If he really thinks that there is a need for party designations, I suggest that he brings forward a new clause to deal with the problem of local government, where there is an arguable case. But for the time being I suggest that he leaves Parliamentary elections alone and lets each of us in our own way announce our allegiance


to a political party and expound our political views. We do not require his assistance.

Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps I might intervene now to deal with some of the points raised—for the convenience of the Committee, not necessarily to bring the debate to an end, though, naturally, I hope to shorten it. Although the discussion has been very useful, I do not think that the proposals are fully understood. That may be partly because of their complexity, and perhaps I might assist the Committee by giving an explanation. I want to get the views of the Committee on the matter, and I am grateful for what has been said this afternoon. It helps me.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) put the position perfectly in relation to the functionary who can authorise the use of a label—except for one word. He said, or implied, that the authorisation would need to be delegated from the centre.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It could be; it need not be.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) had not quite got this right. There is no need for the Conservative Party to obtain some authority for itself and then delegate it. It is open to the local Conservative Association in my constituency, for ex ample, to say to the registrar, "We wish to register as the Cardiff South-East Conservative Constituency Association." It will then be for the registrar to con sider whether there is anybody with a better title to that name than the Cardiff, South-East Conservative Constituency Association. If he thinks that there is, he can hold an inquiry to decide between the two. But there will be no need or occasion for the Conservative Central Office to come into the matter directly.
I agree that the structure of the Conservative Party is different from that of the Labour Party, and I hope that I am stating the Conservative Party position correctly. I recognise that the Conservative Central Office has no authority over local constituency associations, though I dare say that a certain amount of influence is applied from time to time. But there is no constitutional authority, and the Clause recognises that by making

it possible for the constituency association to register itself with the registrar if it wishes.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain this point in principle and in theory, irrespective of the differences between the two parties? Suppose a party said to the registrar, "In respect of every constituency X shall be the person who shall approve the use of the label by the candidate". Is not it possible, under the Bill as it stands, for the central direction of the party to be registered as the only source of authority in every Parliamentary seat throughout the United King dom?

Mr. Callaghan: If a party wanted to handle the matter like that, it could do so, though I believe that anybody who tried to foist that on the Conservative associations would not succeed. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames spoke of his view of the Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party. I do not think that that would be a runner, nor would it be a starter in the Labour Party.
I think that the problem the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in connection with Pembroke could not arise. As I understand the legal case which has just been decided, the learned judge ruled—I speak with great care here, and I hope that I am right—that the local Pembroke party cannot disaffiliate from the national Labour Party. Therefore, the structure is different, and there is a different setup. What would happen in the case of the Labour Party is that the national agent or the general secretary would register the name of the Labour Party.
The Conservative Party would have to register the name of the Conservative Party—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam would do that himself—and the local constituency association would also register. I concede that that is inconvenient. I think that the Labour Party would need to make only one registration, while the Conservative Party might need, if it chose to do it in this way, to say to its local constituency associations, "To protect your name, get your registered trade mark. Please register with the registrar." That is the basic difference.

Mr. Turton: Then surely the ballot paper would have to say, for example, "John Smith, Cardiff South-East Conservative"? That would cause unnecessary complication. Surely one could only put on the ballot paper what was registered with the registrar?

Mr. Callaghan: I should like notice of whether the Cardiff South-East Conservative Constituency Association could register itself in a way that would enable the candidate to put simply "Conservative", or whether he would have to spell it out in full. I cannot see that it would be more disadvantage to put "Conservative" or "Cardiff South-East Conservative Constituency Association". I do not think that it matters either way.
I do rot see the difficulty raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames about the Asquithian and Lloyd Georgian Liberals. Both could register, and both could protect their trade mark, if they could agree who was entitled to it. There would be nothing to prevent the Lloyd Georgian Liberals claiming to patent that name and the Asquithian Liberals doing the same. I cannot see that any problem would arise here.
Of course, the origin of this exercise was the convenience of the elector. I understand that the elector would like a scheme of this sort, so it is for us to devise one if we can, although I said when I introduced the White Paper that I recognised the formidable administrative difficulties, and accepted the idea in prin ciple subject to being able to make the necessary administrative arrangements.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: To return to the point about the competing Liberals, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Asquithian Association and the Lloyd Georgian Association in a certain area could both register the name "Liberal"?

Mr. Callaghan: What I am saying is that if both wished to register the simple name "Liberal" the registrar would have to decide who had the better title. But I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that neither would dream of using the other's name, and, therefore, they would have to register as Asquithian Liberal or Lloyd Georgian Liberal. I shall not go into the history or troubles of the Liberal Party, except with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). But it seems

to me that that would be the conclusion of that matter.
I agree that one of the advantages of the proposal is not from the elector's point of view, but from the point of view of the party. I see every reason why one should concede to a party the right to a patent for its trade mark, its name. I think that there is something to be said for that. I do not rate it too highly, but I do not see why a party should be at the mercy of people who do not stand for its views or principles, but, nevertheless, claim to do so and by such means deceive the electorate.

Mr. Robert Cooke: rose —

Mr. Callaghan: No. I have given way a lot, and the hon. Gentleman has not been present throughout this debate.
It is, as I say, an arguable case—although I would not say that great constitutional decisions rest on it—that, if we can reasonably give the party some protection, this should not be ruled out of our considerations.
The right hon. Gentleman listed six criteria and said that we only stood up on one of them. I think that we stand up on five. That is a matter of argument, obviously. However he and I agree that we should not involve the returning officers in making political decisions if we can avoid it.
I would not regard it as criticism of the scheme that minority and splinter groups cannot be represented. They can. There is nothing in the scheme to prevent any splinter group of the Tory, Labour, Liberal or any other party, registering as such if it wishes to separate itself from the main body. It is also obvious under the third criterion that the arrangements are flexible enough to provide for changes if, say, a group of Tory or Labour Members wished to cut themselves off and register themselves separately.
There is a weakness in the scheme if we assume another situation like that of 1931. I agree that there is a time weakness. Obviously, there would be nothing to prevent the persons concerned from describing themselves in any way they wanted in their election literature, posters and publications. But on the ballot paper, if they had not got in in


time—and we are assuming a time gap—they would either have to say that they were independent, non-party or nothing at all. They could leave it blank. That would be the solution. But such a situation could only arise by an accident in time. I readily concede that we should consider such a situation but I would not regard it as an overwhelming argument against the scheme.

Mr. Turton: Surely one has eight months in which to change—from June to February.

Mr. Callaghan: There are two registers a year, although I would not have thought that there was eight months between them. However, I will look into the point again. The registrar will publish a register of descriptions twice a year, not of parties, although, obviously, they will be party names in most cases. It will be up to date.
One of the weaknesses of the scheme, raised by the right hon. Gentleman but basically by my hon. Friends, is that it does not apply to all forms of election. I regret to say that I have no answer to that criticism. It is also fair to say that the chief difficulty arises much more in the case of local elections than in the case of Parliamentary elections. At the moment, I do not see how the scheme can overcome this. The extension proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe), who has done a great deal of work on the matter, would involve over 1,400 local authorities in England and Wales alone, apart from parish councils. They have anything from a handful to 100 electoral areas each. In addition, in local affairs, parties often exist for single wards or divisions and thus there might be tens of thousands of individual parties to register. Many of them would be ephemeral, with little or no organisation and ill-fitted to comply with the exacting requirements of the procedure.
6.45 p.m.
I think that the scheme could bear hardly on people advancing local or even transient causes in local elections. For this reason, I have not been able to apply it to local elections, although this is where the criticism arises. Even so, I think it worth while putting the scheme

forward so that the electors can have some indication on the ballot paper of the people seeking their votes. At the moment, the ballot paper merely says that a candidate is a merchant, or a gentleman, or a farmer, or whatever it may be. Is it not more relevant to tell him that a candidate is a Conservative or a Labour candidate rather than tell him that he is a farmer, for example? The case may not be universal but it applies broadly. I shall not argue how much each of us is worth in terms of personal votes, irrespective of party.

Mr. Hogg: Five hundred, at the most.

Mr. Callaghan: On this and some other matters I would not disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
But there have been times when I have been glad to have those 500 votes. I would not spurn any of them. But I think we all know that the important factor is that the local supporter in the local constituency adheres to the cause and not to the name of the person who is candidate. We may regret it, but all I am seeking to do on the ballot paper is to recognise it as the fact that it is.
Perhaps I may refer again to the structure of the Tory Party. There is nothing undemocratic in saying that on the ballot paper shall be shown the description of the supporters of the standard bearer—the candidate. Indeed, there is a lot to be said for it. They are taking the responsibility of putting him up for election, of providing finance and organisation and are working for him. There is surely a good arguable case far saying, "The group who have called themselves 'Conservatives' should be able, if they choose, to say it on the ballot paper". That is the beginning and end of it.
I ask the Committee to give me the Clause at the moment, but in the light of what I am saying I do not want it to assume that I would insist upon the Clause on Report. I ask the Committee to give me the opportunity to think about the various alternatives put up. I think, in view of what I have said, that there can be little doubt that Amendments would be called, if put down, on Report so as to allow us to discuss the matter again.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My right hon. Friend has raised the basic objection to extending this scheme to local government elections. He said that it would lead to possibly a very large number of parties. Surely that is an administrative difficulty for the registrar. My right hon. Friend went on to say that this may in certain circumstances bear hardly upon local causes because they would not have the facilities to know how, when and where to register. Surely, in such a situation, all that would happen would be that a local candidate would go on the ballot paper with no description at all and, therefore, would be no worse off than now. In such a situation, would it not be desirable to cover the vast mass of candidates rather than opt out of dealing with local government elections for the sake of one or two who might be hardly done by?

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend has summed up the position, but, of course, it is important also to try to be fair to everyone. I do not dissent from the way he has put it. One can argue that transient causes would be no worse off, but I am striving for a situation in which everyone will have the same start. I admit that this is a weakness in the scheme. My hon. Friend says that we should not abandon it because of administrative difficulties, although we will agree that those difficulties are formidable. I am not sure that I can overcome them, although I take the point that administrative difficulties should not prevail over policy if we can avoid it.
I return to the hon. Gentleman's argument about public notices. I would like to consider it, but it is possible to advance the argument that a public notice posted in the polling station or booth might be construed as carrying some official sanction, even though it says that it is what the candidate purports to describe himself as. I am advised that the safeguard he proposes would not be very useful if someone wished to mislead. One can argue that the ballot paper always derives from the nomination form, that it is the description on the nomination form which is reproduced on the ballot paper, and, therefore, there would be less official sanction if it were clear that the ballot paper was reproducing what was on the nomination form. It

would be clear that there was no official sanction how the man described himself.
I would like to consider all of these schemes again. If we were to move from the scheme we have here, with the defects which I have readily acknowledged, I would still, despite some arguments that had been put up, like to keep the description in because it is my understanding that the elector would like a description, if we can find the right scheme. I will look at the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, at the idea of a free-for-all in which people just say, "I am the Con servative" and if there are three Conservatives on the ballot paper he will need to sort it out. That is the possibility, without any official sanction.
If I ask the Committee to give me this Clause, I hope that it will do so on the understanding that I do not feel wedded to this scheme in the light of this discussion, but will take it away and consider all the proposals that have been made quite freely and without prejudice to what has been said, and come back if I thought it right and administratively possible with something new on Report.

Mr. Hogg: I do not want to detain the Committee unduly, nor do I wish to curtail the debate if hon. Members wish to pursue it. I should respond to what the right hon. Gentleman has said and give the Committee my provisional view about it. It had certainly been our intention to vote, at least, once on these Amendments and possibly even twice. I must say that if the Report stage does not yield a different result from that which is now proposed, we shall vote against it then.
On the whole, we would be well advised to accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said as a reason for not pursuing the matter to a Division now. This is not a controversy for which I would die in any of the ditches which have been excavated by any of the speakers so far. The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the public would like labels, if it can be done. I also believe—and this is where I perhaps diverge from him—that the public would like a system of labels which was neither very complicated nor made any substantive change in the relative powers of individuals or organisations, that they would simply like a fair description of


what the candidate was, without altering the balance of the constitution or the balance of powers within an election in any way.
Very often it is true that the public wants it both ways. In that event one has, rather regretfully, to say that it cannot have it both ways. I suspect that this may be one of those cases. What I want to say quite plainly is that I think in relation to Parliamentary elections the disadvantages of this scheme heavily outweigh the advantages. We have here a complicated scheme which does not meet with the situation really in need of reform. There is no substantial demand for party labels in Parliamentary elections because, except in a very few cases where all the candidates names happen to be the same, electors are in no real doubt about knowing who stands for what.
On the other hand, there is a substantial demand for labels in local elections. I would like to meet it in one way or another. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is right when he said that this scheme cannot be applied to local elections. I do not think it is feasible. The conclusion I draw from this is that if the Government think it worthwhile to produce a scheme they must produce a different scheme from that contained in the present Clause. That is why, if they do not think of something before Report, I shall vote against it when the time comes. The right hon. Gentleman has approached the problem in the right way, and I would like to give him the opportunity he desires.
In those circumstances, when the time comes, I shall suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) that he withdraws his Amendment. I shall not advise a Division on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. That, I think, will meet the right hon. Gentleman's invitation.

Mr. Gardner: In view of the very accommodating response by my right hon. Friend I will make only three brief points. I thought that we were being led up the garden path, with great respect to his considerable experience, by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). His argument, with which I concur completely, is that we are representatives of geographical areas of people,

and we represent them regardless of political power. This might equally be applied to the whole business of elections and party propaganda during the period of elections. I cannot see the difference between putting a label on a ballot paper and putting a great deal of propaganda through people's doors.
My right hon. Friend is right in trying to apply political labels to candidates in Parliamentary elections, because I would hardly have thought that if we assume a sophisticated electorate the business of going round with a loudspeaker van and shouting, "Bloggs for Labour" and, "Jones for Conservative" is the modern way in which to approach an election.
We spend a great deal of money doing this, and we are dealing with a Bill which will enable us to spend more money doing this kind of thing. I would like to be in a situation during an election when one can discuss issues instead of concentrating all the candidate's time and effort and the resources of those around him just shouting slogans. I welcome the idea of labels. I agree with others who say that we should apply this to local elections. I share some of the misgivings expressed about the application of something like the present scheme if we are to make this possible. That is why I tabled an Amendment which is an attempt to relate it much more closely to the local associations.
One of the dangers we fall into sometimes is that we try to legislate for every possible circumstance. If one wanted to put a name to this Clause one might say that it is the Clause to deal with the situation in Pembroke. We should not make laws in this way. It would be possible to identify, in simple terms, what is a local association, whether political or anything else, and therefore to relate the political description to the one commonly used by that association locally.
We can overcome the problem of the man who falls foul of the association or perhaps does not want to be directly associated with it by enabling him to put additional words in the description to say that he is an Independent Conservative, Independent Liberal or Independent Labour candidate.
I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. I hope that he will try to work out a system which can be applied locally. I agree that the danger of people not knowing for


whom they are voting applies much more readily in local government elections than parliamentary elections. I hope that on Report my right hon. Friend will be able to include within the Bill a system which will enable political descriptions to be applied in local elections, too.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I apologise for detaining the Committee after the Home Secretary's generous remarks, but I wish to press the right hon. Gentleman on the question of applying any scheme of party labels to local government elections.
I agree entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) that, by and large, the electorate in Parliamentary elections can sort out which candidate is which. However, at the last election, I remember going to a polling station and being asked by an elderly lady whether I could remember the name of the Labour candidate. It put a considerable strain on my memory. If the electoral circumstances had been different, it might have put an impossible strain on my memory. I am sure that it is at local government elections that the need for some identification of the candidate arises.
Like two other speakers, I believe that the last G.L.C. election at Wandsworth provides the classic case. The 216,000 electors at Wandsworth were faced with a list containing the names of no fewer than 20 candidates. One of those candidates was a well-known Labour councillor, Mr. Prichard, who received 4,500 votes fewer than the next Labour candidate who had not previously been a councillor, Mr. Sporle. There was a Liberal candidate who was also called Pritchard, although he spelt his name differently. There was a 't' in the name of the Liberal candidate, but not in the name of the Labour candidate. The Liberal Pritchard received 11,319 votes whereas the next Liberal candidate received only 5,058 votes. It is plain that more than half the votes given to that Liberal candidate were given by mistake.
I recognise that it is much more difficult to assign party labels at a local election than at a national election. A number of examples have been cited today of controversies which have shaken local associations in Pembroke, North

Dorset and North Newcastle, and there has been dispute about who was entitled to bear the party label. But at the national level such disputes receive maximum publicity and the situation is not very confusing for the electors.
In my constituency there has been considerable argument about who should have the party label at a local government election. When the constituency of Beckenham came within the Greater London Borough of Bromley, it was necessary slightly to reduce our number of local representatives. Following a duly held selection committee meeting, two of those people who had represented one ward were not reselected for the new seat. They did not accept the decision; they stood firm. As they had stood before as Conservatives, they should have been entitled to stand again as Conservatives, just as the official candidates did.
The Amendment put forward my my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) is right. Let the candidates choose the label under which they wish to stand, particularly at local government elections, because provided there is a modicum of communication between all those concerned, it is possible to arrive at a compromise between the rival groups. If one old faction wants to go on calling itself "Conservative", the new official candidate could be put on the ballot paper as official Conservative. This could be a matter of local negotiation. I am sure that in nine cases out of 10 it would be possible to resolve any dispute amicably.
I put to the Home Secretary two reasons why it would be to his party advantage if the names of the parties appeared on the ballot paper. First, it would benefit the large party as opposed to the small party. At the Wandsworth election, clearly the Liberal Pritchard gained far more from the coincidence of name than the Labour Prichard. Therefore, in any clash of names between the Labour and Liberal Parties, one would assume that the Labour candidate would do better as a result of indentification.
Another argument is that this would help the party for which stupid people tend to vote. Intelligent electors are far more likely to be able to remember the


names of candidates than the less intelligent electors. Therefore, while we on this side of the Committee have been pressing for the extension of the scheme to local government, it will be, on the whole, against the advantage of the Conservative Party, which has more intelligent supporters, and to the advantage of the Labour Party, which has less intelligent supporters.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I will not detain the Committee for long, in view of the conciliatory attitude of the Home Secretary, but I should like to add to what has been said by referring to what happened in my constituency at the last G.L.C. election, because it was typical of many.
There were 18 candidates. Four of them were Labour candidates. The candidate with the highest vote received 1,250 votes more than the one who got the lowest vote. The candidate who received the highest vote was the least known of all four candidates. That situation, which is indefensible, arose because the electorate did not know which were the Labour candidates and which were not. I advised the candidate who had the least votes, and who was probably the most able and best known, that he should do what the well-known Victorian artist, Mr. Alma-Tadema did.
Mr. Tadema, as his name was at that time, was fed up because pictures were exhibited in alphabetical order so he altered his name to Alma-Tadema so that his pictures would be the first to be seen by visitors to the exhibition. My advice to the unsuccessful Labour candidate was to do the same, but now I hope that I will be able to take less drastic action, and assure him that there is a good hope that our Home Secretary will alter the law so as to give a fair chance to those whose names are lower down on the alphabetical list.

Mr. Iremonger: The steam has gone out of the debate. Any hon. Member who is unwise enough to intervene at this stage must be aware that he is against the grain of the feeling of the Committee. I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes since Members expect to be able to debate all the important details of the Clause on Report when the

Home Secretary brings forward his new scheme. We shall not, on Report, be able to debate the validity of the underlying principle of the Clause; that would not be in order. I therefore ask for an opportunity to record my absolute fundamental opposition to the entire principle of having party labels on ballot papers. It offends deeply against my most cherished constitutional and political principles.
My right hon. Friend spoke of what the electors want. He said that the electors want to know which party the candidates stand for. I think that the electors want to have less feeling that their political destiny is in the hands of party monopolies rather than in the hands of the people they elect to represent them.
The electors are suspicious of party influence. They are afraid that their representatives are party hacks, Lobby fodder, going through the Division Lobbies in this place at the behest of the party Whips. This is a profound feeling of mistrust which is universal in the electorate except for those who are committed to political parties. The Clause will confirm those widely held suspicions.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman, I am sure, understands that, if his theory is right, then we are giving a great boost to that point of view. A candidate will be free to describe himself on the ballot paper as independent, or non-party, and we shall be able to see what support he will get. In other words, this sorts out the parties, whom the hon. Gentleman dislikes, from those independent and non-party people whom he says the electors want.

Mr. Iremonger: The right hon. Gentleman is not doing justice either to himself or to me. I believe in the two-party system. I think that it is essential for the proper functioning of parliamentary democracy. I am proud to support and be supported by the Conservative Party. I am the Conservative candidate, and I sit in the House as a Conservative Member of Parliament, but I also sit in the House primarily as the elected representative of the people whom I represent; and we all do.
To the extent that our electors doubt that, we are mistrusted as Members of Parliament, and the House is mistrusted. If we put on the ballot papers the names


of the parties, we derogate from the proper constitutional independence, so it will seem to the electors, of ourselves both as candidates and as representatives.

Mr. Callaghan: Why does the hon. Gentleman put it in his election address? I am sure that he does, and is proud to do so, and on every other piece of literature.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Iremonger: I say that I am proud to be supported by the Conservatives in my constituency. Broadly, they and I take the same view, and are likely to continue to take the same view. I intend to support broadly those they expect me to support in Parliament, but I am not the creature of my party. I am returned to act as I think right, to influence my party or, if necessary, to resist it. That is an important duty of every hon. Member, and I would not dream of suggesting that other hon. Members do not take the same attitude.
But we are all suspected by the electorate of not taking that attitude, and if we go to them with our names on the ballot paper, supplemented and reinforced, as they will see it, by the fact that we are Conservative or Labour, we are derogating from our own personal responsibility and making the electors mistrust us as proper constitutional independent representatives. I am, therefore, afraid that the Clause will damage the confidence of the voter in the institution of Parliament as a whole.
I believe that the parties should function, and function strongly, and that there should be two of them, but they have never had any constitutional reality or existence. This is the first time that the existence of political parties has been written into our constitution, and I do not think that it should be done. I want to protest about it now because I shall not be able to on Report. It offends against the cardinal principle of democratic representation, which is that representation is in the first place personal, and than the candidate should answer to his electors, having made his allegiance known in his own person, as himself, with his own voice, without having a dog licence round his neck, so that he stands both as something more and as something less than himself.
Anything which derogates from the personal responsibility of the candidate and of the Member of Parliament is a constitutional blasphemy which I am extremely distressed to see being accepted so lightly by the Committee.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sorry that I could not be here at the beginning of the debate. The Home Secretary refused to give way to me on the ground that I had not been here, but I was attending a Select Committee of the House and, therefore, could not be in the Chamber.
I do not like the idea of copyrighting party labels. The Committee may recall that under the Ten Minute Rule procedure I had the leave of the House to introduce a Bill dealing with party labels on ballot papers, but that nothing in my Bill copyrighted the names. The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe) first introduced this in the series of Ten Minute Rule Bills.
I hope that the Home Secretary will have second thoughts about copyrighting the names. It gives undue assistance to the party machine, and I would not want to do that. I regard it as a beastly cynical observation to suggest that no candidate is worth more than 500 votes. This has been disproved by a number of candidates who have collected many thousands of votes against the wishes of their former party or of a party machine.
We could get out of our difficulties by a simple procedure which could apply to local elections as well as to Parliamentary elections, if labels are necessary to make it easier for those who are not sure of themselves. All the candidates at an election, Parliamentary or local, can tell the returning officer how they wish to describe themselves. If they are all agreed, and nobody objects to the name used by any of the others, all those descriptions can go on the ballot paper and everyone will be perfectly happy. The returning officer is put in no difficult position where he has to arbitrate; all he has to do is to accept that they are all agreed. If they all agree, fair enough. If there is a dispute, then the simple rule is that no one shall be described by anything other than his occupation, as at present.
This simple procedure would be fair and would meet many difficulties, certainly the difficulty of local authority


elections where things may happen quickly and many different descriptions may be required which are not easily registrable in time. I leave that thought with the Home Secretary to consider before Report.

Mr. Sharples: This has been a useful debate. I want to express my own gratitude to the Home Secretary for his undertaking to give further consideration to the various schemes which have been put forward.
I do not want to appear churlish, but perhaps I might mention one point. He gave his ideas of how the scheme could be applied to the Conservative Party. Leaving aside whether or not under the Clauses and Schedule as at present drafted it would be possible to register perhaps 630 different descriptions separately, I am sure that he will appreciate the enormous administrative problems which there would be in this, with all the procedure that there is in the Schedule.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentle man will give some thought to this point when he considers the matter with his advisers. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

COUNTERMAND OF ABANDONMENT OF POLL ON DEATH OF CANDIDATE

Mr. David Lane: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 12, line 22, leave out first 'on' and insert '28 days after'.
The effect of the Amendment will be to provide for one extra month's delay before polling takes place after the death of one of the original candidates. It is a simple point which should not detain the Committee for long.
We are considering the situation where a candidate at a Parliamentary election dies at any time between the issue of the writ and polling day. That may be thought to be a rare occurrence, but I understand that it has happened twice in the last 20 years. In 1950, the Conser-

vative candidate at Manchester, Moss Side, died during that period. In 1951, the Labour candidate at Barnsley died. In both cases, the polling date was postponed for only 14 days, and, in the circumstances, that seems to be a very short time. I am surprised that in this respect the law has apparently remained for so long unchanged and that we are providing that it should continue to be so if we agree to Clause 13 in its present form.
Looking ahead six months to the warmth of next summer and the even more pleasant prospect that the Prime Minister might decide to dissolve Parliament, let us assume that writs are issued for a general election on 26th June. If we also imagine that on 10th June, just as the campaign is getting under way, a candidate in a certain constituency for X Party dies, under the present wording of Clause 13 the returning officer will have to act as if the writ was received not on the original day but on 10th June, the date of the death. That would mean that polling day would then be on about 1st July, which would be a postponement of only 10 days. X Party would then have to find a new candidate in indecent haste, and that would give a clear advantage to the other parties which are already in the field with their original candidates. If we leave the Bill in its present form, we are in danger of putting electors in this rare contingency in a position of mere rubber stamps as regards the new candidate then chosen to run in the election.
How can this be corrected in a reasonable way? When my hon. Friend and I considered the matter, it was tempting to impose an extra delay of two months. That would allow the party to choose a new candidate properly, give him some time to get to know the constituency, and time to get himself known before the campaign proper started. However, I see disadvantages in prolonging the uncertainty unnecessarily, so, in drafting our Amendment, we fixed on a month's extra delay.
I propose this Amendment as a modest but useful improvement. I hope that it will be accepted. If the Government see any difficulties which have escaped us, I hope at least that they will recognise the real problem here, look at it again, and come forward with their own Amendment on Report.

Mr. Speed: I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) in this non-controversial Amendment. These matters do not occur very often, but they have occurred, and obviously one must make provision for them. That is what Clause 13 intends to do.
If a party is put in the situation where a tragedy of this sort occurs, it seems very unfortunate that, as from the date of the death, it should be taken that the writ has been received and the election only postponed for ten days or so. One can imagine the difficulties and personal problems which a constituency party might face in the event of the death of its retiring Member or a candidate adopted for some time past. It seems not unreasonable to extend the time both to allow for the personal sense of shock to the local party and to give the new candidate reasonable time to be chosen and to try and make some sort of impact on the constituency. Obviously he will be at a disadvantage compared with the other candidates who have survived and will fight the battle again.
I hope that the Government will look favourably on this Amendment. One could have argued that it was unfortunate if a candidate died but that it was not necessarily the problem of Parliament to think about parties and the way in which they choose their candidates because political labels do not apply. However, we have rehearsed that argument in relation to the previous Clause, and it is obvious that one should consider local parties, local people and candidates. My hon. Friend's Amendment is a reasonable compromise to try and reconcile these factors in the unlikely event of a tragedy of this sort occurring.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): The
House recognises that this is a practical, sensible and non-controversial Amendment. At the present time, provision exists for a poll to be countermanded if, after publication of the statement of persons nominated but before the poll has commenced, proof is given to the returning officer of the death of a candidate. In accordance with the recommendation of the Electoral Advisory Conference, Clause 13 (1) (a) also provides for the poll to be abandoned if the

returning officer is satisfied that a candidate has died during the course of the poll. The Clause makes no change in the law which provides for all proceedings with reference to the election to
… be commenced afresh in all respects as if the writ had been received on the day on which proof was given to the returning officer of the death.
Thus, the arrangements for a fresh election must start again at that point. Incidentally, this is different from the steps to be taken under the rules for local government elections, where a returning officer is required to order an election to be held on such a day as he may appoint.
The suggestion is that there should be a 28-day interval between the abandoned or countermanded poll and the start of the fresh election period. It seems to be a reasonable one. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) said, we might have been discussing a two-month delay, and I take his point that an unnecessary delay would not be helpful to anyone. Even acceptance of this Amendment will create difficulties, but the death of a candidate would itself create difficulties, and it would appear to be sensible to have the sort of period suggested as a breathing space.

I would recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Goodhart: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the insertion that he has made. However, it has rather increased the feeling of alarm that I had on reading Clause 13. When we are considering this whole subject, we assume that we are dealing with intelligent electors who wish to make the system work. But on reading Clause 13 it seems to me that we are laying ourselves open to sabotage of the political system by a small group if it wished to be awkward.
Suppose a small group of anarchists or fanatics wished to stop the return to this House at a General Election of the Leader of the Labour Party, the Leader


of the Conservative Party, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). Under our present rules it would be possible for a small band of electors in each of those constituencies to get together and to nominate somebody whom they knew was seriously ill and at the point of death. When those persons died following nomination the elections at Huyton, Bexley, Stetchford and Enfield, West would be invalid. Fresh elections would be called and the same thing could happen again. Such a group could put up three candidates who were at the point of death in each of these constituencies to make sure that a death occurred. It would merely require three candidates in each constituency and £450 per election.
I seek reassurance that this kind of thing could not happen, because in our society we have such groups with the intelligence and resources to bring this to past if they so wished. They could keep out political leaders almost indefinitely in this way. I seek assurance that I am wrong. If I am not wrong, I suggest that, on Report, the Clause should include within it a provision that an election should not be halted unless the candidate who died had been supported on his nomination by, say, 250 or 500 electors. This would mean that when a candidate representing a majority party died the whole election would come to a halt, but not on the death of a possibly freak or malicious candidate.

Mr. Buchan: It is a very bizarre concept to contemplate a small group of people searching for someone at the point of death in order to nominate him to defer the return to this House of the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) or the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). The trouble with dying men is that they sometimes take an unconscionable length of time to die, as every entailed heir knows. He may get a fresh lease of life, come bounding to the poll, and may win it, much to the chargrin of the right hon. Member for Bexley or the right hon. Member for Enfield, West.
I cannot say that I intend to look terribly diligently at Clause 13 to prevent this kind of thing happening. If we were

to enter the metaphysical realms of speculation of all possible contingencies in an election, we would have no electoral law whatsoever.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

NON-RESIDENT AND PROPERTY QUALIFICATIONS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Peter Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 14, line 3, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 4.
This Clause does two major things. First, it takes away the vote which is linked with the ownership and occupation of property; and, secondly, it prevents people outside a particular local government area standing for the council. Amendments which we trust will be called later will deal with the latter point. I consider the later Amendments far more important, in terms of their effect and their adverse effect, on local government than Amendment No. 50.
I should like, first, to ask the Government for an explanation why they have decided to proceed with this Clause. Not very long ago—indeed, this year—a conference of local authority experts and representatives of the major political parties was organised by the Home Office to discuss local government and election law. This point in no way came up at that conference. There was no proposal to take away this form of voting. I know of no pressure by any local authority body, by any people concerned with elections, or by any major political party to this end. There have been no discussions between the major political parties or with the local authorities on this topic. If a Government decides to take away the vote from a certain body of electors, in the normal course of the democratic processes which we have known in the past consultation usually takes place, and if no agreement is forth-coming the Government have a right and a duty to go ahead with their views. This point was not put to the conference


by the Home Secretary, no conclusions were reached, and since that time no consultation has taken place.
The vast majority of local government electors qualify as such by virtue of residence in the local authority area. This qualification also gives them the vote in Parliamentary elections. This provision would make residence the only qualification for all electors for the Parliamentary and local government vote. The non-resident qualification means the occupation of land or premises of a yearly value of not less than £10 and gives the local government vote only. A person cannot establish a non-resident qualification in the same local government area in which he has a residence qualification. There is no question of someone having two votes because of owning property and being resident in a locality. He can only have one vote in any local government area.
The reason why I thought it was sensible and reasonable to keep the nonresident electors on the electoral roll was primarily that these people contribute substantially to the finances of the locality and they also depend substantially on the services in that locality. A large proportion of the rates in a locality comes from the owners of property, some of whom are not resident in the locality. It is in the interests and the general strength of local government that those people should be allowed to cast their votes in elections and to feel that they are participating in the government of the town. The owners of property also depend on many of the services provided by local authorities. To create a situation whereby these people have the vote taken away serves no purpose, other than providing a sense of frustration to those who provide a lot of the finance for a particular local authority.
It is worth recalling that we lost some colonies in America on the basis of taxation without any form of representation. If the Clause goes through in its present form, we shall have owners of properties in localities making a very considerable contribution to the rates, depending to a large extent on the services provided, but having no right to cast a vote for the council.
I think we all agree with the principle of one man one vote at elections, and this

is preserved. No one can vote more than once for any local government authority. As there has been no pressure on this topic from any responsible body, as no consultations have taken place, and as none of the major committees which have reported on local government reform in past years has made this recommendation, I hope that the Government will think again and accept the Amendment.

Mr. Stanley Henig: I have rarely heard a more tongue-in-cheek speech than that just delivered by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker). The hon. Gentleman talked about voting, and the fact that an anomaly in our voting system has survived over the years. The anomaly is based on the fact that once upon a time a vote was given, not per person, but according to wealth, according to money, and according to income.
It is not the case that people whose interest in a locality is commercial, or because they work there, have the vote at the moment, but business men have the vote. The property owner in an area has a vote. But what about the person who lives in one locality, and goes to work at a factory in another? Is not he as bound up with the welfare of that area as is the property owner? In the City which I have the honour to represent there are hundreds of local government voters.
If everybody who worked in a city, including the thousands of people who come in from outside to work in the factories, were to be given the vote, I should join hon. Gentlemen opposite in their proposition, but then the hon. Gentleman would not be advancing this theory. He would be arguing to the contrary, because he knows that the local government voters who have this special privilege, those who get their votes because of money, tend to vote for his party, while those who do not get the vote, the factory workers, vote for the party that I represent. This is partly political.
The hon. Gentleman then moves on to a most disingenuous argument. He says that there is no question of these people having two votes in the election for the same local authority. But they can have one vote in the election of one local authority, and another in the election for another local authority. This


is an anomaly, and will remain so as long as it is connected with the fact that a person gets the vote because of his money.
I am sorry to see that once more the party opposite, instead of being concerned with whether the Government, locally and nationally, represents the wishes of the people concerned, on the principle of one man, one vote—which I should like to think, though I sometimes doubt, is recognised by everyone in the House—is more concerned with safeguarding for the few a privilege which they own by virtue of their wealth.
I believe in a democracy in which people are treated equally. Unless my right hon. Friend comes up with an alternative suggestion on the lines suggested by me on a previous occasion, that factory workers should also be given this extra vote, he should stick to his guns, abolish the anomalies, and make sure that local government is local, and is based on the principle of one man, one vote, one value.

Mr. Speed: Having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) I can only say that we seem to be harking back to the cloth-cap days of party strife with a vengeance.
It seems to me that there are three fairly important reasons why we are discussing this at the moment and why the Amendment has been put forward. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) said, when we have the reform of local government looming round the corner it seems nonsensical to try to take on a fairly major reform of the way in which local government is made up, because many of the councillors will not be councillors in two or three years' time.
The second anomaly in the present system—and here I am arguing against my own side—is that where there is a limited company, a great company which is a household word, the directors, or management, or owners of that company do not enjoy the facilities given to someone who has private business qualifications in a city. In view of the state of local government at the moment I think that we ought to be trying to get more people both to vote and to stand for

local elections. We ought to try to get more people of a higher calibre into local government. We ought to extend the franchise, not limit it.
Thirdly, if we believe in more efficient and more responsible local government it seems to me that to tackle things piecemeal while we are on the threshold of the greatest reform of local government in our history is nonsensical and extremely short-sighted.
I hope that the Committee will reject the argument of the hon. Member for Lancaster, which added nothing to the debate. I accept the limitations of the argument advanced from this side of the House. There are limitations in the lack of representation of limited companies and great public companies. Bearing in mind the principle of no taxation without representation, we ought to see whether we can extend the franchise rather than seek to limit it.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I rise briefly to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig). In the Luton-Dunstable area we have the double problem of seeing this on a national basis, and of being approached by local Tories. The attitude of the Opposition on this matter, more than any other, identifies them as belonging to a party which is tied to wealth and property. This is basically what the argument is about. It is this type of property qualification which is associated with the infamous régime in Rhodesia. It is this type of property qualification which is regarded as necessary to vote in local government elec tions.
In Luton, we have the farcical situation of a local authority discussing an extension to the airfield, a move which will affect the lives of the great majority of the people there. Many of the Tory councillors concerned live in secluded villas many miles from Luton.

Mr. Allason: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that those people living in villas many miles from Luton are most troubled by aircraft taking-off from the airfield?

Mr. Roberts: I accept that if someone lives in a certain direction from Luton he is affected by aircraft noise, but not all


the gentlemen on the council live in that direction Some live in the opposite direction. It is wrong that such people, who will not be affected by any decision taken about the airfield, should partake in those discussions. I believe that while the present boundaries exist people within those boundaries should control the local authority.
Perhaps I might for a moment come back to what my hon. Friend said about no taxation without representation. If this doctrine is to be applied, as he rightly said, every person who works in, and contributes to, a town in which he does not live should have the same entitlement as the people who get the vote because of their business connections. I say that because the value of a business is created largely by the people who work in it.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. If they want to give people who live: outside an area the right to vote in that area, they should extend this privilege to those who work in a city in which they do not live, in whatever capacity, or in whatever kind of business. This cannot be operated in practice. In a town like Luton, with thousands of people coming in to work in a factory like Vauxhall, this would be quite impracticable. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: This is the most reactionary Clause that the House has debated for a long time. When the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) opposed me in, I think, the 1959 Election, he did not seem too inhibited from coming to fight in Ormskirk, despite the lovely Welsh lilt in his voice, which was obvious evidence that he was not a native of Ormskirk—

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The hon. Member must remember that I actually lived in the Ormskirk constituency, which I do not think he did at the time.

Sir D. Glover: Then it must have been for a very short period. But I was delighted to see the hon. Member come into the House.
We should make a great mistake in a small country like this if we brought in legislation to limit the ability of hon. Members; in this matter. I am dealing at the moment with the question whether a person can stand for a council—

Mr, Peter Walker: Next debate.

Sir D. Glover: Well, we will come to that question later.
If we were logical, we would remember that the United States of America rebelled and became independent on the slogan of "No taxation without representation". The party opposite, who live in the House and have a picture of a great feudal agricultural system, do not seem to realise that that society has changed in the last 50 or 60 years. A firm like I.C.I. is probably the biggest ratepayer in its area and it is incredible that it should not have a vote in what happens in the spending of the money which it has to contribute.
The Tory Party is not completely guiltless, because we have, over the years, allowed the removal of the vote from business firms other than unlimited companies. The proposal which we are debating is that the business vote for unlimited companies shall still be allowed in the area in which they do business. If we want to run a sound local authority, we should recognise that those who are interested in its efficiency are not entirely governed by considerations of where they sleep at night. Surely, the way to get a good local authority is to have people voting for their own personal, local interests, as agents, manufacturers, travellers or shopkeepers. They are all interested in how the area in which they do business develops.
Until now, very wisely, Parliament has allowed all those entities which are not corporate—in other words, limited liability companies—to have a say in what goes on in such development. Under this proposal, they will have that right no longer. This will not improve local government but will lead to overweighting in favour of the householder and against general community development. Of course, the householder is important—he wants schools, playgrounds and the amenities provided by local authorities—but the business community which must pay a great deal of the cost takes a slightly different attitude and should have at least some say in the decisions of councils after they are elected.
There may be a development in the centre of a city, or in an urban district like Ormskirk, but the shopkeepers there will be deprived of any say in how that


takes place, even though they live only half a mile away. Particularly in small authorities, people do not live 10 or 12 miles, but sometimes only 200 yards, from where they do business. A person might live in a rural district and will no longer be able to vote in the nearby urban district in which he does business, although he is far more interested in the development of the latter than in that of the former. Depriving these people of a vote will only lead to over-emphasis purely on the householders' interests as against those of the other people who make up a viable and alive community.
There are very few limited liability companies in the smaller local authorities who are deprived of votes. These small firms are the people who will be deprived of votes and of influence over any development and the weighting of the rate burden between householders and shopkeepers. The Government are depriving the local authorities of these people's advice and influence, so they will inevitably lose interest. They will not be able to vote or stand for the council in that area and so will feel isolated and might even take an irresponsible approach to these problems.
8.0 p.m.
This argument is not so powerful in the great cities, because people working there live 12 or 15 miles out; in the large authorities it is almost fortuitous whether a person lives within or outwith a boundary. This applies to my constituency. A great many people in my constituency do not know until election time whether they live in the Ormskirk Urban District Council area or over the boundary in the Rural District Council area. Nevertheless, they all have a desire to improve conditions in this part of the world and I do not want them to be deprived of their vote as a result of the Bill.
I have shown that instead of making an improvement in local government, the Bill is reducing local autonomy to a bitter party battle. I doubt if the Bill would have been introduced had the Labour Party not suffered some devastating defeats at elections in the last couple of years. A great deal of tit-for-tat is going on, with people having the feeling that the Labour Party is saying, "Many local people have not supported us. We will

sack half the councils and put the matter right." That appears to be the attitude of the Clause.
Hon. Members should accept that they are here as wardens with a responsibility. The legislation which we pass now will affect our areas for many years to come. In perhaps 50 years from now many people with interests in the United Kingdom may live abroad, such is the advancement of mobility. Under the Bill they will be deprived of the interest which they can now take in the places where they work. I have no objection to workers coming into this if they have genuine interests in these areas. As long as people's interests are greater in the areas where they work than in the areas where they live, they should have this right.
I am not being political in stating this view. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite are amused. I am never political on these issues. The idea that people should be deprived of having an interest in the development and wellbeing of an area simply because of past ideologies is the thinking not of a progressive party but of a reactionary one.
Do hon. Gentlemen opposite want small local authorities to be entirely controlled in their thinking by local householders who want benefits like swimming baths for their children? Is nobody who pays the rates from which those benefits are financed to have a say in the local community? I warn hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they introduce this system—and they probably will as a result of their majority—they will produce unhealthy rather than healthy local government. The basis of all government, national and local, rests on a balance, and the basis of that balance is that those who pay should have an equal voice with those who receive the benefits.
It is illogical that we should be considering a provision of this kind when the whole of local government is under review. We are waiting for two Royal Commissions to report. We even have a Commission considering our constitutional arrangements. The Clause is wrong in its timing, is spiteful and does not represent coherent thinking. It will produce an unbalanced system of local government, particularly for small local authorities.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) never ceases to astonish me. A moment after entering the Chamber he began speaking about the Amendment which we will be discussing next. Having been corrected, he went on to speak for 20 minutes on this Amendment. I am beginning to understand why the Conservative Party has mooted its original opposition to this part of the Clause.
When I studied the Amendments I discovered that the party opposite has only one to this part of the Clause, No. 30, which would leave out the Clause in its entirety. There are obviously different considerations applying to the two different parts of the Clause and I hope to speak to later Amendments concerning the latter part of the provision. Meanwhile, I have no difficulty in supporting the Government on this part of the Clause.
No argument in favour of the business vote is now tenable, although the hon. Member for Ormskirk did his best to adduce same. His first was the idea that there should not be taxation without representation. In my constituency a major part of the rates is paid in respect of industrial premises, in particular by large public companies. They have no say in the sense of voting for the election of the local authority.
There is a large, internationally-known company employing one-sixth of the total labour force of the York area; yet none of its directors has a say in the election of the local authority; and if they live outside the area none of the employees right down to the gatekeeper, has any say in the choice of the local authority. Those who have a say are those who live in the area. There is a small number of self-employed businessmen with businesses in the area who choose to live outside it and refuse to pay towards the domestic rates of the area. I cannot conceive that that small minority should have additional representation, in addition to the others who come to work inside the city.
One is therefore faced with two choices; either to take away the business vote, which the Government propose to do, or to extend it so that anybody who comes to work in an area or who has substantial business interests in it should have a second vote. Apart from the question of duality of voting, such a

system would be completely impracticable. It could not be made to work, since employees may shift their employment at any time, because there is no question of regularity of tenure of office and because a public company with 12 or 20 directors might have premises throughout the country—or even outside the country—and so be entitled to 20 or 30 votes in lieu of its 20 or 30 premises. How many votes would the managing director of Montague Burton have? As that proposal is utterly unworkable and must be rejected—and one must therefore reject the business vote—there is only one argument left, and that the Government have adopted.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I had not intended to intervene until I heard the hon. Member for Bed fordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) discussing Rhodesia. I thought it time to come nearer home. I wish to spell out some of the facts of life as they are known in some cities. In Leicester, a boundary was quite artificially drawn about three years ago, during the time of this Government and when there was a Labour city council, against the advice and recommendations put forward to the Boundary Commission.
That was done to bring within the boundaries of the council's area estates which were outside the city and to leave out private estates which were left as indentations on the map. [An HON. MEMBER: "Gerrymandering."] As an hon. Friend says, it was gerrymandering. The intention was obvious, but my presence here shows that it did not work out that way. I am happy to say that those who live in council houses do not reckon that they have any longer to show allegiance to the party opposite in whom they have lost trust and confidence.
A result has been that people with businesses within the city—many small shopkeepers and businessmen whose livelihood depends upon those businesses—by reason of the development of the city and imposition of standards by the local authority about living accommodation and shops, have had to move out of the city boundaries. Yet to anyone who motors into the city and does not study a map those people are still part and parcel of the city. Their livelihood depends on the city, not on where they happen to rest their heads at night. They


are concerned whether a local road should be widened, whether a bus stop is in the right place, and that sort of thing.
These are matters on which they are entitled to vote because they pay rates in the city. They pay out of their own pockets.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Do they not include their rates among expenses for which they are allowed Income Tax relief?

Mr. Boardman: Of course they do. They also include payment of wages and many other things, but they are concerned to get value for money. This is something which hon. Members opposite do not understand, but it is about time that they realised it. There is no excuse for squandering money because it happens to be allowed as a relief against tax. That is another thing which the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) might learn.
By this Clause these people are to be dispossessed of the right to have a vote to protect their businesses. That is quite wrong. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) referred to widening the network. There is much to be said for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) spoke about people who work in an area having a vote there. There are grave practical difficulties and a distinction to be made between those who work in an area and are intimately concerned with its welfare and shopkeepers who have to pay rates in the area.
I agree with hon. Members that those who work in an area should also have a vote there but that would be affected by the Maud Commission and Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government Boundaries and this Bill should have come after those Reports have been received. Probably as a result of the Royal Commission's findings a large proportion of people will live and work in the same electoral area. Then many of these problems would be overcome. This provision is premature and wrong. Because we cannot do complete justice to everyone it is quite wrong to do injustice to some people.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Marks: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) made the understatement of the year when he said that the case for the business vote was not so strong in the large cities. If I may use the expression, he was "not kidding". The argument is that because people pay rates they should have representation. In the City of Manchester the people who pay big commercial rates are the Co-operative Insurance Society, £218,000 a year; the C.W.S., £106,000; Lewis's, £204,000; and I.C.I., £124,000. None of those has a single vote.
There are bigger ratepayers, the Crown, which pays £250,000 a year; the North Western Gas Board, which pays £170,000; the two electricity boards, which between them pay £580,000; the university, which pays £232,000; and the College of Technology which pays £141,000. They do not have a single vote. We should look at the effect of the business vote and how it has been manipulated by party organisations. In Albert Square, Manchester, there are 36 electors. Only one is resident in the square, an attendant at the town hall, the rateable value of which is £100,000. The other 35 voters are business voters and 24 are in one building which has a rateable value of £470.
Theoretically, it would be possible with good organisation by dividing rooms and tenancies to have 47 votes for the building since the qualification is a £10 valuation: In St. John Street—the Harley Street of Manchester—there is multiple occupation of old Georgian houses by medical consultants. In one such house seven doctors applied for business votes. Two did not get them because they live within the city. The other five got the vote and also got a vote for the area in which they live. At No. 2 Booth Street there are 18 votes, nine of them in a suite of offices occupied by a firm of lawyers. In another block in Booth Street there are 11 business voters all of whom have applied for postal votes and the nearest address for those postal votes is Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.
Let us have no doubt about the value of those votes. Most are concentrated in the central ward of St. Peter's, which has 3,860 voters. These areas are weighted for high rateable value in assessing the boundaries. In the Gorton North ward


there are 13,558 votes. So a vote in St. Peter's ward, a business vote, is worth three times as much as a residential vote in Gorton. There is no democracy when some people are to have two votes and others to have one. One man, one vote is the democratic way that we should follow.

Mr. Lane: I strongly support this Amendment. I am totally unconvinced by the objections which have been made to it. We are talking about the non-resident qualification for voting. So far, most hon. Members have used general arguments to develop a case for or against the Amendment. I want to take the debate down to the level of the people concerned, whether they are small businessmen or shopkeepers, because this is not just a matter of taxation plus or minus representation and paying rates. I want to describe the position of those faced by important decisions affecting their businesses, decisions taken by their local authority. Paying rates in that situation is often a secondary consideration.
I illustrate this by a small street near the centre of my constituency. It is largely a shopping street. There are three very important topical questions before the local authority, in all of which the shopkeepers in the street have a direct interest. First, building operations started a few months ago on either side of the street. It is not so much a feeling of the shopkeepers that they are between the devil and the deep blue sea. They are between Jesus College, on the one hand, and Christ's, on the other.
This matter first came to my attention while one of these sites was being excavated in the autumn after the extremely wet weather of September. Even at the time, before the operations had really started, several of these shop keepers said to me that the mess on the road, and the mud thrown up by vehicles passing to and fro, made the pavements harder to walk on and caused them to wash their windows, as one of them put it to me, twice in the day. In a matter of this kind, as the operations get under way on both sides of the road during the rest of the winter, they rely on their local councillors to act vigorously and ensure that their trade is not affected, or is affected to the minimum, by this development.
The second example of a topical problem which is affecting these people and

which will affect them for many years, is the possibility of drastic traffic control schemes being introduced in the centre of the city, making large parts of it pedestrian-only areas and turning other parts of it, possibly including this street, into a one-way system. We all know that nothing so arouses the feelings of shopkeepers as proposals for traffic regulation or a one-way system. [HON. MEMBERS: "Their trade".] Of course it is their trade. That is what they feel strongly about. That is what the Amendment is about. Here again, they are relying on the representatives of their ward to speak for them. Nobody else can do it.
The third matter before the local authority is one of even greater importance to the shopkeepers in the longer term. It is the redevelopment of an area lying within a quarter of a mile in the opposite direction. Again, there is a question of traffic schemes, of new roads, of an alternative shopping centre, of parking problems. It is very costly in terms of finance, but important, also, in terms of the whole centre of gravity of shopping and trading generally in Cambridge. Again, these shopkeepers are relying entirely on their councillors to take the right decision in this very important problem which is shortly coming before the local authority.
I suggest that to accept the Amendment would be simply to act in common fairness to a number of people. I emphasise that these are all small people. Some of these are one-man businesses. Earlier speakers have spoken about I.C.I., the Co-op, and other large ventures. The shopkeepers I have mentioned are small men who care seriously about their local representation on matters of this kind.
I have mentioned this as one topical example within the experience of my constituency. I am sure that other hon. Members could illustrate the problem equally well by taking similar examples from their own constituencies. These issues deeply affect these people. They have the right to some say in the men and women who are to represent them. I believe that there is already a risk of business people becoming increasingly disillusioned with local government. We should seek to narrow and not widen the gap between business and local government.
This is the purpose of the Amendment, and I hope that all hon. Members will support it.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) has argued that the small shopkeepers to whom he refers cannot make representations. They can make representations to the local councillors and to their local Member of Parliament, as they have done.
The hon. Gentleman has argued, secondly, that these people have interests in the town. I am sure that directly or indirectly many other people have interests, but they do not demand a vote because they have such interests. In a perhaps rather naive democratic way, I have always believed that representation is not about interests but about people. I believe that the arguments we have heard advanced by hon. Members opposite tonight are much the same arguments as were used by the Duke of Wellington at the time of the Reform Act, 1832 and by Lord Salisbury at the end of the century, when certain people were described as stakeholders and were said to have an interest in the country as a business. It was argued that they should, therefore, be able to express their views.
That concept of representation should have gone out during the past century. We are picking up one of the last pieces of this way of thought, which has been a Tory way of thought. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) said, this is the last fling of the party of rotten boroughs which we are seeing tonight. They speak with 20th century accents, but from a 19th century point of view.
I welcome the principle embodied in the Bill. I want to ask my right hon. Friend, who comes from a rather different part of the country from myself, whether the Government have fully taken into account the special circumstances now prevailing in Wales as a result of the attempt to apply this welcome principle to Wales. The defects in the present Welsh local government structure have been recognised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. We have had a White Paper. We expect the boundary reforms to be implemented within two or three years.
In the present unreformed structure, the application of this welcome principle would create considerable anomalies. For example in Monmouthshire the Borough of Abergavenny has overflowed its present boundaries. Over one-third of the council houses of that borough are built outside. If the principle were implemented immediately, a very high proportion of the councillors would leave the council, but only for a year or two until the boundaries of the borough were brought into line with its natural boundaries, as foreshadowed in the White Paper on Local Government Reorganisation.
It is absurd that these people should be without representation in the borough for this interim period of a year or two. There should be a little flexibility in the application of this welcome principle to the peculiar circumstances of Wales. I would welcome an assurance that the Government recognise this anomaly and will take steps to meet it, ideally by deferring the application of the Clause until we have the reformed local government boundaries in Wales.

[Sir RONALD RUSSELL in the Chair]

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Silvester: I was greatly amused by the speech of the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Marks), and, having been so amused, I should be delighted to agree with anything he said. However, I can only say that, in citing the examples which he did, he completely missed the illogicality of his argument.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a square in his constituency—I have for gotten the name—where there is one building with a large rateable value giving one vote and another building with a small rateable value giving 25 or 26 votes. There are two possibilities in that situation. One is that the hon. Gentleman could be arguing that those who had gone into the second building had done so specifically to secure a vote. I do not imagine that he would regard that as a tenable explanation. It is not reasonable to suppose that people will set up offices in order to obtain a vote which will have only a marginal effect upon the election in the ward.

Mr. Marks: May I clear up the misconception? The offices were of the kind which one finds in buildings of that sort, where one firm has a business—perhaps a firm of solicitors or estate agents—and it divides its offices up into separate rooms, giving each member of the staff a room and therefore, since the rateable value is more than £10, a vote.

Mr. Silvester: The position would be different in the case of a professional firm organised on a partnership basis from that of a commercial firm. To take the other example which the hon. Gentleman gave, he said the effect was most noticeable in the central Ward—I forget the name again—where there was a small electorate in numbers because it had a high rateable value, whereas in the north-east ward there was a large number of electors because the rateable value was low. The same argument must apply. If one gives weight to rateable value as between wards, it must follow that there is point in having regard to rateable value in relation to people who have an office or a firm there.
As I understood it, the hon. Gentleman's argument is that we should ignore the fact that a man has property in an area although that property has a rateable value which contributes to the rate fund. Yet his authority is prepared to divide up the wards in such a way that it determines the number of representatives according to rateable value rather than according to the number of electors. The way out of his problem is to redistribute the seats in accordance with the number of electors rather than in accordance with the rateable value, in which case the effect of the business vote would be marginal.
I come now to another illogicality which has run through this debate. It is said that the main objection to the business vote is that it prevents application of the principle of one man one vote. The illogicality is obvious. The argument depends on what one is voting about. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) and other hon. Members opposite have talked about rotten boroughs, and several hon. Members have drawn analogies with the national situation. Obviously, in the national situation, any member of the community is interested in what the national Government does,

and it is right that he should have a single vote. On the other hand, the man who has a property in one area where a specific and different authority is deciding different matters may quite properly have a voice there, and, similarly, have a voice in another local authority area where different matters are being decided.

Mr. Anderson: Does the hon. Gentle man follow that line of argument through and say that Messrs. Marks & Spencer should have a vote in every area?

Mr. Silvester: No. I was coming to that point in the context of such companies as Montague Burton, to which reference was made. We recognise that Montague Burton as such—or the Crown, for that matter—does not have a vote nationally. We recognise that distinction because companies of that kind are corporate bodies. What we are concerned with here, however, is the business vote of people who are, in the main, small business men or traders who individually and in their corporate status are one and the same.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting in his rather strange argument that for some reason or other Mr. Burton is less interested in his business in a particular town than a small shopkeeper who has a shop there?

Mr. Silvester: That is not what I am suggesting, but a man whose sole business is in a town could have a much greater personal interest than a corporate body with interests spread over the country, which may be much more directly affected by what the national or regional authority does—if we get regional authorities—than by what the local authority does.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the logic of his argument is that when a man starts a small business in a town he deserves a vote there, but that if he expands and becomes a public company he no longer deserves it?

Mr. Silvester: I do not disagree with that view. It is the view that we apply in national politics. We make a distinction betwen a corporate body and a man voting personally. The individual interests of the owner of a small business and his interests as the owner, are much


more closely married than those of the managing director of Montague Burton and its branches scattered around the country.

Therefore, I hope that the Committee will support the Amendment.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The Amendment would result in leaving out the words
The non-resident qualification for voting at local government elections….
It therefore considerably narrows our discussion.
Every hon. Member opposite who has spoken has confirmed that the party opposite wants to retain the non-resident vote purely and simply for itself. No one has mentioned what I thought on Second Reading was the real reason for the opposition to the loss of the non-resident vote, that it also meant the loss of qualification to stand as a candidate. That has not been mentioned—

Mr. Sharples: It is the next Amendment.

Mr. Ross: That may well be, but this one on its own does not make good sense or good grammar. Leaving out the words that the Amendment would de lete would result in the word "are" appearing where "is" would be much more grammatically appropriate.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) chastised us because the provision had not been a matter for discussion at any of the Conferences. He is right, but I think that we explained this on Second Reading. We are doing it because a vital principle is involved in respect of franchise. The hon. Gentleman seemed to take a certain amount of pride that the Amendment would mean one man, one vote in one area. But the implication is that he is fighting to save for the man who already has a vote in another area, as a resident, his right to vote where he does not reside.
The hon. Gentleman's main plea was that the individual had a financial stake, and he stated that a large proportion of the rates was paid by non-resident occupiers. The case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), where the combined rateable value was £470, hardly bore that out. The outstanding fact is that

the largest ratepayers, the industrial rate-payers, have not got a vote, for the simple reason that they are limited companies, and public bodies have not got the non-resident vote.
Reference was made to the High Streets. I do not know whether the High Street of Cambridge is unique, but in most of our High Streets we find banks, building societies and multiple stores, not a single one of which has the non resident vote, no matter how much it pays in rates. On Second Reading, I stated that the form required that
… for registration a non-resident local government elector … must be in occupation, either as owner or tenant, of rateable lands and heritages …
I commented:
The fact that companies or public bodies, or the like, occupy land and hereditaments does not entitle their officers and members, as such, to be registered.—[OFFICUL REPORT, 18th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1024–5.]
Thus, the sole qualification for the non-resident is that he must be the owner or occupier or tenant of property whose gross annual value is £10 per year. This is a legacy from the past. If there were any truth in what the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) had to say, we should not be discussing this Amendment but something to give more effective power to those who substantially form the basis of his case.
However, the whole trend of the franchise for a long time—and I hope that we shall not turn the clock back—has been away from property qualifications. In 1945, we got away from the restriction to ratepayers in local authority elections and extended the franchise to everyone who had a vote in the Parliamentary elections. This is, therefore, a very small hangover.
In England and Wales, municipal voters total 32,130,000, of whom 130,000 have the non-resident vote. Obviously, this is a very small number and, by de finition, a very privileged number. In Scotland, the total electorate is about 3,400,000, of whom about 23,500 are non-resident voters. That is what all the song and dance is about.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: It is a matter of principle.

Mr. Ross: It is not principle. If principle were involved, hon. Members


opposite would have sought to extend non-voting rights to those who have financial interests.
Indeed, that was the sole basis of the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester. He said that a large proportion of the rates were paid by non-resident voters, who had, therefore, a financial stake. If that is so, he should have sought to extend the non-resident franchise instead of merely trying to hold it to this very small number. I hope that the Opposition realise that they are well behind the times on this matter. One hon. Member suggested that we were making this change out of spite. Nothing of the sort. This is a sensible approach to the modern franchise.
The case of shopkeepers was deployed. In my part of Scotland they say about the shopkeeper in the main street, "His grandfather lived above the shop. Now the grandson lives about his income in Troon." Those involved having lost their domestic and resident votes in a town, it is a bit much to expect us to give a non-resident vote to this small hangover from the past.
8.45 p.m.
Is anyone telling me that shopkeepers do not complain? Even the non-resident companies which occupy premises in the greater part of our commercial areas complain when they do not get the services of the local authority. They can quite usefully use the local or national Press, if need be. If they have a case local authorities are quick to deal with the matter, because it affects the residents in the town who are the customers of these companies. I hope that hon. Members will be reasonable about this, or at least appreciate that their arguments are not very strong.
We are saying that in local elections it is a case of one man, one vote, and that that vote may be cast in the area where he lives. We are denying no one the franchise; we are not taking away the right to vote. We are saying that people have the right to vote only where they reside. I see no reason why, in these days, there should be a duplicate franchise. A very small number is involved. When one looks at the limitations in respect of the amount of money that may be involved, £10 a year on a land or heritage, it can be a shop, office, factory, or

garage, a very small property indeed. It does not matter about its size or importance, so long as it is £10 a year.
Hon. Gentleman have to face up to this. They are not fighting for a principle. They are fighting for a relic of a past age, one that should go. The biggest ratepayers in my constituency would not seek to have a vote for one moment. They prefer to depend on the good sense of the electors. The same thing is true in places like Motherwell, with Colvilles. Probably the greater part of the rates are paid by that firm. Hon. Gentlemen do not seek to give Colvilles a vote. Let them recognise what they are fighting for—for the past. If hon. Gentlemen do not withdraw the Amendment, I ask my hon. Friends to make no mistake about rejecting it in the Lobby.

Mr. Sharples: This part of the Clause takes away a right from a number of local people. The right hon. Gentleman said that only about 130,000 people out of 32 million electors were affected. He made out a reasonable case, as did many of his hon. Friends, for an extension of the right where there is an interest involved. Why, if the Government feel this, did they not so word the Clause as to meet the point of an extension of the franchise, rather than a restriction of it?
I hope that when we come to consider the next group of Amendments, in which we propose an extension of the right to stand, the right hon. Gentleman will be consistent in his argument. He has made it clear that this subject had not been taken up previously in consultations with any of the bodies concerned—the chambers of trade, the local authorities, between the political parties or anyone else concerned.
The Home Office Advisory Committee has been sitting for a year or so, considering all these matters in detail. The Secretary of State says that this is a great issue of principle to his party. We should be told why this proposal, which must have been in the Government's mind, was concealed from those taking part in the discussions of the Advisory Committee. We have had no answer to that, either now or on Second Reading. We should be given the genuine reasons for this alteration in the franchise being made at this time and why there was no consultation. No case for it has been made out by the Secretary of State.
We know why this alteration in the law has been made. This is the alibi, and a very poor one, too, for the massive defeats of the Labour Party in the local government elections. The country will see this as an alibi, and it will not do right hon. and hon. Members opposite any

good. I advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote in favour of our Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made.—

The Committee divided: Ayes 208, Noes 260.

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Wright, Esmond
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Woodnutt, Mark
Wylie, N. R.
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Worsley, Marcus
Younger, Hn. George
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Fernyhough, E.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Finch, Harold
Mackie, John


Alldritt, Walter
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.


Allen, Scholefield
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert


Anderson, Donald
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ford, Ben
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bagier, Gordon A, T.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Manuel, Archie


Barnes, Michael
Freeson, Reginald
Mapp, Charles


Baxter, William
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marks, Kenneth



Gardner, Tony
Marquand, David


Beaney, Alan
Garrett, W. E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bence, Cyril
Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, J. J.


Bessell, Peter
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mikardo, Ian


Bidwell, Sydney
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Millan, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Blackburn, F.
Gregory, Arnold
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Blenkinsop, Arthur




Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Molloy, William


Boston, Terence
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Hamling, William



Boyden, James

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hannan, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bradley, Tom
Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brooks, Edwin
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Murray, Albert


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Haseldine, Norman
Neal, Harold


Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)
Hazell, Bert
Oakes, Gordon


Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Heffer, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice



Henig, Stanley



Buchan, Norman
Herbison, Rt. Hn, Margaret
Orme, Stanley


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hilton, W. S.
Oswald, Thomas


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hooley, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hooson, Emlyn
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter


Cant, R. B.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Carmichael, Neil
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Palmer, Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Chapman, Donald
Hoy, James
Pardoe, John


Coe, Denis
Huckfield, Leslie
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman


Dalyell, Tam
Hynd, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Randall, Harry


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rankin, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham.S.)
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dell, Edmund
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Dickens, James
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Rose, Paul


Driberg, Tom
Ledger, Ron
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunn, James A.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rowlands, E.


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, John (Reading)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs. René e (W'hampton,N.E.)


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Edelman, Maurice
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lubbock, Eric
Slater, Joseph


Ellis, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Small, William


English, Michael
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Snow, Julian


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McBride, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
McCann, John
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Macdonald, A. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
McGuire, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Faulds, Andrew
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Swingler, Stephen







Symonds, J. B.
Watkins, David (Consett)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Thomas, Bt. Hn. George
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Weitzman, David
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Thornton, Ernest
Wellbeloved, James
Winnick, David


Tinn, James
Whitlock, William
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Tomney, Frank
Wilkins, W. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Urwin, T. W.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Mr. Charles Grey.


Wallace, George
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Mr. Peter Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 95, in page 14, line 4, after 'elections', insert 'is hereby abolished'.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Ronald Russell): I think that it would be convenient, with this Amendment, to take Amendment No. 51, in page 14, line 5, leave out from '1933' to end of Clause and add:
'shall be amended to read "he has during the whole of the twelve months preceding the last day for nominations owned freehold or leasehold land within the area of the local authority, or has during the whole of the twelve months preceding the last day for nominations had a principal place of work within the area of the authority"'
and Amendment No. 48, in line 14, at end add:
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person shall be qualified for election to a local authority in which he is non-resident provided that he shall have had a principal place of work within the area of the authority during the whole of the 12 months preceding the last day for the nomination of candidates for the election.

Mr. Walker: The major part of this debate will take place on Amendment No. 51. Here, we are trying to obtain a very considerable extension to those who will be able to stand for local government elections in the future. The views expressed in the last debate, for example, by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) and by other hon. Members opposite is met completely by the Amendment.
The last time that I took part in a debate on a Bill for which the Home Secretary was responsible—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is difficult to hear what he is saying. There are too many private con versations going on.

Mr. Walker: The last occasion on which I took part in a debate on a Bill for which the Home Secretary was res-

ponsible was in the course of the 1965 Finance Act. On that occasion, we differed on many Clauses and Amendments. However, of all the Amendments that I have moved, never has there been a more important one than this. Unless an Amendment such as this is accepted, the Clause will have a very damaging effect on local government throughout the country, for what the Government are doing is ensuring that a large number of councillors and county councillors will, at the end of their term of office, be unable to stand for those localities.
Some of the most distinguished men in local government, men of all political parties, are affected by this provision. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) knows that seven Labour councillors on Manchester City Council are affected by this proposal. The present Labour Leader of the G.L.C. will no longer be able to stand for election if the Clause goes through in its present form. The Government are removing from local government men of all political parties who have a distinguished record of service.
I cannot understand the reason for the Government taking this action. Every piece of evidence, provided not by party politicians but those genuinely interested in the future of local government, has called for an extension of those able to stand for election rather than a reduction. Indeed, only this year the Home Secretary was responsible for setting up a conference on local government law. That conference discussed this matter and concluded that there should not be a reduction in the scope of those people standing. The Home Secretary has, therefore, gone against the advice of his conference on this subject.
The right hon. Gentleman has also gone against the advice of the Maud Committee on the management of local government. It is important that hon. Members on both sides should recognise how strong and positive was the


unanimous recommendation of the Maud Committee on this subject. Having heard the expert witnesses, having discussed the topic at great length, and having heard all the representations, the Maud Committee said in paragraph 424 of its Report:
Our conclusions are that:—

(a) the present legislation makes it difficult for certain people to stand for election and may be the cause of their resorting to arrangements to enable them to satisfy the requirements of the law;
(b) mobility of people increases; many may have just as much interest in the area in which they work as in the area in which they live and this should be recognised;
(c) the effect of the law is to exclude some people who may be valuable candidates for election to local authorities particularly in urban areas."

Paragraph 425 says:
We recommend that there be an additional alternative qualification for election to local authority, namely that the person should have had a principal place of work within the area of the authority during the whole of the 12 months preceding the election.
That is what we are endeavouring to achieve by Amendment No. 51.
All of us concerned with local authorities recognise the difficulty of all political parties to obtain men of high calibre willing to devote a great deal of their time to the work of local government. Only yesterday the House, by the Rate Support Grant Order, authorised local authorities to spend millions of pounds. We ought, therefore, to be searching for ways by which we can improve the calibre of local government. I find it extremely disappointing, very much to understate the case, that the Government are going forward with a proposal which, if anything, will diminish the calibre of people operating in local government.
There are many reasons why the Government should not proceed with the Clause in its present form. One was given by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) who has now left the Chamber. He referred to the position of a number of his councillors on the Monmouth Council, presumably Labour councillors. They are on a council housing estate which will be affected by future boundary changes. The hon. Gentleman will lose a number of those councillors under the Government's proposal, but under our scheme, if they work in

Monmouth they will be able to continue to serve.
The pattern of rehousing in our major cities is interesting in this regard. Certainly, in my own City of Worcester, the local authority is short of land and is building estates outside the City. A number of men will go into those estates who are actively engaged in local government and working in the city. Under the Amendment, they would be able to continue to serve on Worcester City Council.
This applies also to men of calibre in both political parties. I believe that the property qualification, for example, enables the present Labour Leader on the G.L.C. to continue to give his services to the party opposite in that assembly. These are men of high calibre. Many men in the professions, perhaps solicitors and doctors, are willing to devote their time to local government; many of them buy houses near the city concerned and their major interest continues to be in that city. It is the city where they shop and carry out their business.
It cannot be in the national interest suddenly to remove all these men from local government. Many of them, for example, live in the rural districts surrounding some of our major towns and cities, and, as a result of this Measure, they will have to lose their places on local authorities, on which some of them are chairmen of committees and leading figures. They will be lost to local authority work altogether; they will not start it again on the rural district councils, since their real interest is in the welfare of the cities involved.
There is a whole series of arguments against this proposal. One is that Members of Parliament do not always live in their constituencies, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. There is a difference, of course, in that we represent the national interest in a national assembly, but we have a duty to voice here matters of local interest and to ventilate in this assembly the local problems of people concerned. Certainly, all of us try to carry out that task well and few would argue that those who do not have a residence in their constituencies are necessarily worse constituency members as a result. My home is in my constituency, but if I lived a few miles outside, I would hope that the service I gave my electors


would be just as good and thorough. The same applies to these councillors.
The only defence which the Govern ment can make for this Clause is that all these Manchester City Councillors and the leader of the Labour Party on the G.L.C. are worse councillors because they do not happen to live within the city concerned. The Government have failed to recognise the pattern of the typical provincial town. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) implied earlier that he was more in sympathy with this Amendment than with the last. In a city like York, many men of high calibre, of both parties, live just outside the city boundaries, but nevertheless make very good councillors.
Added to this, however, is the whole question of local government reform which is coming up. It is the general guess of both sides of the House that this will create larger local authority areas. If so, most of the men adversely affected by these proposals will be able to come back into the new, reformed local government. But what is the sense of having this legislation now, so that many able councillors in Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle and London will be removed from active participation in local government? Probably, a few years later, when the reform takes place, they will have lost their interest and knowledge and will be lost to local government for ever.
9.15 p.m.
Even if one wanted to advocate the case of necessity of residence within a local boundary area it would have been in the interests of local government to have waited until after the Royal Commission had reported and the Government had decided on the action to be taken.
As far as I know, this Government proposal has no real support. I have never heard the Labour Party propound as its official policy the view that people should be resident within a local authority area. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had propounded that view they would not have adopted candidates without such a residence qualification—and they have done just that in many major local authorities. Such a step was not sug-

gested by the Home Secretary to the local government conference which he called. The Maud Report—the major report on local government in recent years—was not in favour of it. None of the local authority associations with either predominantly Socialist or Tory councils has advocated this proposal.
What can be the explanation for the Government taking this step? Is it not just a piece of sheer political spite and gerrymandering? Is it not because they want to remove a large number of Tory councillors from active participation in local authority activities? This can be the only real argument for such a proposal. With so many local authorities being predominantly Tory controlled, large numbers of Tory councillors will be affected by this proposal. There must be a temptation on any Government who do not like the complexion of the majority of local authorities to take such a view. Doubtless there are many people who do not like the complexion of the Government and would be anxious to introduce all sorts of franchise changes to help remove a lot of hon. Members in the near future.
This is tempting, and I remember Harold Macmillan, when asked to reflect on the occasions when he stood for Stockton, replying that he had been three times defeated and three times elected. He said that on the three occasions when he was defeated he had reflected on the stupidity of a system whereby anybody, however foolish, was able to vote. On the three occasions when he was successful and was elected he had reflected on the inherent good sense of the British people.
There must be a temptation for the Government to look at the large number of Tory dominated local authorities and wish to take spiteful action. In terms of electoral reform, we have always avoided such party action for the sake of spite. We have always had party agreement on major reforms and there has always been proper consultation. The Home Secretary has had no form of consultation whatever on these proposals, except when the matter was discussed in a slightly different context at his own conference—and that was, if anything, in favour of extending the possibility of non-residents standing in local government elections.
I urge the Home Secretary to think again. It is in the interests of the Government that we have the ablest men possible operating in local government. As a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary will be aware that these people are responsible for the expenditure of a very large proportion of public money.
If one can persuade men of high calibre distinguished businessmen and top executives—to give their time and service to local activities, that must be in the interests of the locality, of the Government and of the country. It is because the Clause as it stands is so completely against those interests and because the Amendment would extend further the availability of able and willing people in local government, so enabling them to make a useful contribution, that I urge the Committee to support the Amendment.

Sir Dingle Foot: It is very rarely that I find myself in agreement with the Front Bench opposite, but on this occasion I think there is great force in the argument we have just heard from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker). I think that all of us who have had some experience of local government must agree with him.
It frequently happens that members of a town council—we find this phenomenon in all parts of the country—spend the whole of their working lives inside a borough but for domestic reasons live a mile or two outside it. They may be, and they often are, most valuable members of the council. They bring their special or professional experience to their work and the council would be very much poorer without them. If we are to cut them out we shall narrow to a very serious degree the area of recruitment.
I speak with the highest admiration of those who serve without any material reward in local government. None the less, the area of recruitment is not always as wide as we would wish it to be. In this House we pride ourselves on the fact that we draw hon. Members with first hand experience of al kinds of trades and occupations and profesions. It is very desirable that we should have the same qualifications on local authorities. This

perhaps goes a little wider than the Amendment, but I am never able to see why we should distinguish in these matters between Parliamentary and local government elections.
We have never in 700 years insisted on a residential qualification for Members of Parliament. If we had, the history of this House would have been very different. We would have lost a great many of our most distinguished Members. For example, the late Sir Winston Churchill, who was my predecessor at one time in the representation of Dundee, represented, first, Oldham, then Manchester, then Dundee and then Epping. He had no territorial connection with any of them. He was born in Blenheim and would probably never have been returned there. If we had this sort of rule we might never have had the services of Sir Winston Churchill There are many other examples.
I cannot see why we should not extend the same freedom to local government electors. Suppose that someone comes from outside the borough; it is a matter of controversy and a matter which the electors in the ward can take account of, just as Parliamentary electors take it into account. Why should they not be free to choose whom they like?
By way of example I give a piece of my own family history. My father was born in Plymouth and lived a large part of his life in the City of Plymouth. He was a town councillor in Plymouth for many years before it became a city. In later years was elected to Parliament for the adjoining constituency of Bodmin. He and my family left the city and lived a few miles outside the city boundaries. But he retained his office in Plymouth, never lost his interest in the affairs of the city, and, a year or two after the last war, he became Lord Mayor.
I know that Lord Mayoralties are not touched by this Clause, but the principle is precisely the same. I think that his choice as Lord Mayor was not unwelcome to the citizens of Plymouth, of all parties, but he was outside its boundaries. Applying this principle, he ought never to have been chosen.
This change can be justified only on doctrinaire grounds. I always remember the phrase, one of the many phrases I


recall used by Mr. Lloyd George. I once heard him say:
Doctrinaires are the vultures of principle. They feed upon a principle after it is dead." 
I hope that my right hon. Friends will not be vultures tonight.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the last occasion on which I followed the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot), I wholly agreed with him. I find myself in the same position tonight. It seems that one or other of us is now getting soft. The alternative and more agreeable thesis is that we are both dead right.
I differ from my hon. Friend the Mem-for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), who expressed surprise that the Government should have introduced this proposal. I do not find it surprising. Everybody in this world is inclined to do things they do well. For that reason the Government have given up bothering about handling the economy, which they have discovered they cannot do. But they are very good at rigging elections. Therefore, very naturally they abandon the economy and concentrate their efforts and those of the House of Commons on electoral rigging.
It is one of the curious ironies of history that the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer who devalued the £ will now apparently go down in history, not for that, but as "Jim the Rigger", assisted by his acolytes "Elwyn and Merlyn the Fixers".
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester understated the case when he said that the Government had had no consultations about this. This is not so. The Under-Secretary told me in a Parliamentary Answer a few weeks ago that the Government had consulted the local authority associations. He admitted, which is the fact, that the local authority associations had expressed the view that they were against these proposals. Why, if the Government were determined to do this anyhow, did they go through the form of consulting people whose advice, it must be clear, they had made up their minds from the beginning to reject? Why did they waste the time of busy local authorities by going through the farce of a consultation, when they got the most emphatic rejection, before going placidly ahead with their pro-

posals? The best comment of all was that expressed in its own minutes by the greatest local authority in this country, if not in the whole world—the Greater London Council—that these proposals had, in the measured view of the Coun cil, no merit in them.
It it not a question, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said—nor can it be suggested by the Government—of anybody seeking to impose on local electors anyone they do not want. The remedy is in the hands of the local electors. If they take the theoretical view that they can be properly represented on the local authority only by people who live in the town, the remedy is in their hands: they can vote for those candidates who live in the town and reject those who would be in on the qualifications proposed in the Amendment. It lies with them.
What the Government are trying to do is to restrict the freedom of the electors to choose the very people whom ex hypothesi they want. What is the justification for this? Everyone knows that the crying need of local government today is for men and women of the ability and capacity to handle the enormous problems which local government has to face. Committee chairmanships of the G.L.C. and other major cities are jobs not much less in responsibility and difficulty than those of members of the Cabinet. They are unremunerated. It is a matter of extraordinary difficulty for people who perform them to earn a living outside. Unlike those of us in the House and unlike Ministers, who have some remuneration, this is done for nothing, or virtually nothing, by public spirited citizens. The problem, as every local authority would tell the right hon. Gentleman, is to get for these chairmanships, whatever party is in power, men of the quality and capacity needed to do these important jobs well. Why, then, restrict the choice? Why quite deliberately limit the number of people who can do these jobs?
9.30 p.m.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that all this might well be eased when the Redcliffe-Maud Report came along. So it may, and let us hope that it will, but why rush the thing through


now? Why not wait and see what Redcliffe-Maud recommends, see what the Government decide on it and see what legislation Parliament passes as a result, and then, if one likes, review the situation? As my hon. Friend said, to remove people, many of them at the height of their powers and performing responsible jobs in local government, with the consolation, "In a few years, old boy, we may let you come back", is to play foolish jokes with local government.
In any event, Redcliffe-Maud does not apply to London where the problem is particularly acute. I pointed out on Second Reading that the Borough of Camden, one of the largest boroughs and one of those with the largest rateable value in the country, would under the Government's scheme lose four first-class committee chairmen. Why? What justification is there for it? It will not hand the Borough of Camden over to the Labour Party. Camden has made its mind up on that all right. All it will mean is that the Conservative leadership in that borough will have a smaller choice of eligible men to perform the important jobs involved.
The Government have made life much more difficult, apparently deliberately, for local government this year. Why add this extra problem? The only explanation is the one my hon. Friend gave, that the Government, having been rejected by every county in England except Durham, having been rejected by practically every major urban authority and almost every rural authority, have decided that, although they can no longer resist the Conservative rise there, they can still wound—willing to wound but yet afraid to strike.

Mr. Peter Mahon: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) made a good democratic speech. He made the best of a bad job. But the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames—[HON. MEMBERS: "Right hon. Member."]—I am sorry; I shall give him his correct title, and I am sure that he deserves it—the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has not yet learned the elementary lesson of not mistaking abuse for argument. One would imagine that, after all his years in public life, he should know the difference.
I can speak from first-hand experience of the situation now under discussion. At the age of 23 I became a member of a council, and now, at the age of 59 today, I am an alderman of the Borough of Bootle, having been a member of that council for 36 years. Now that the Conservative Party has control in Bootle, my brother and I—he has had about 20 years as a member of the council and, as the House knows, is the Member for Bootle—will go out of the council quite unceremoniously, since democracy will have its way. It is right and proper that democracy should have its way.
It is no good hon. Members opposite arguing that local government ought not to be local. We on this side assert the principle that local government should be local government. It is no good liking democracy only when one can have one's own way. True democracy means that one must like democracy when one does not have one's own way. I shall not like democracy very much—[Laughter.] I have a good idea why hon. Members opposite are in such an uproarious mood. But they must listen. We listened very attentively to the good case made by the hon. Member for Worcester, but there is always another side to an argument, and the reluctance of hon. Members opposite to hear it convinces me that in their heart of hearts they do not believe that they have a good case.
In two years' time I shall be bundled off the Council, because the Conservative Party is now in control after many years, and my brother will be bundled off with me. But we shall not go around shedding the crocodile tears that hon. Members opposite think people should shed because they are put off a council.
I believe that a business qualification is not a strong qualification for council membership. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I will explain. Members of Parliament should be patient. They should be able to demonstrate to people in the Gallery and outside that they have a modicum of patience and the ability and tolerance to listen to a different point of view. I know that hon. Members opposite will not accept my point of view.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Ronald Russell): Order. This is not a debate about patience.

Mr. Mahon: I know that hon. Members opposite will not accept my opinions, but that is not what I am asking them to do.

Mr. Antony Buck: We accept that in two years' time due democratic process may cause the hon. Gentleman to cease to be an alderman and leave the Council. Does he agree that it might be a pity from his point of view and possibly that of the people of Bootle if he decided to move, perhaps even a few hundred yards, and for that reason had to cease to be an alderman?

Mr. Mahon: I am grateful for that intervention. I believe that it would be a pity, and that what is to happen will be a pity. I say with all humility that during my 36 years on the Council, I have been 17 years chairman of the Finance Committee, the premier committee in local government. I have been a member of the Watch Committee for many years, and I have been chairman of the Housing Committee and the Fire Brigade Committee. It could be said that I had a unique local government experience. But democracy should have its way, and that is right and proper. Other things have been affected by the Maud Report, but we should not worry if we feel that democratic procedure is being adopted.
The wisdom behind the proposal is that when people are looking for good, wise and efficient representation from their councillors and aldermen they do not invariably look into the Chambers of Commerce, the factories and workshops. They look for the men and women who are resident in their locality. If they want to have a form signed they do not go to the places of enterprises but to the homes of their representatives.
I could speak on the subject for a long time with great earnestness, but I shall resist the temptation. For the reasons I have stated, if for no others, hon. Members should consider the question with greater vision and foresight, and with a more democratic outlook.

Mrs. Jill Knight: It is a measure of the great importance I attach to the Amendments that I have been waiting since 4.45 p.m. to speak. I served for 10 years on a local authority before coming here. I never lived outside the town boundary

and, therefore, would not have been debarred by Clause 15 from serving had it been in operation. But I had ample time to observe that just as valuable service was rendered by colleagues living outside the borough as by those who lived within it. They did not attempt to leave earlier or shrug off their full burden of committee duties, and they were never averse to taking their full load of civic duties.
I served on a small committee which was given the job of appointing a council official. It was suggested that we should appoint a person only if he lived within the borough boundary. However, it was argued against this that, although it could be said that his time between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. was the town's, where he went afterwards to live was no business of ours. It was argued that he was willing to provide a service and if his qualifications measured up to the job he should be taken on. A man who lived outside the borough was appointed. He was receiving a premium for his service. We are talking about people who give their service free.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I have many very large firms in my constituency, most of them limited companies. Most of the executives and managers could not serve on the borough council, anyway. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the principle of non-resident qualification should go to all and sundry?

Mrs. Knight: Exactly. If a person is willing to serve a council, he should not have to be told where he must live, and this should apply whether he is receiving a salary or is giving voluntary service. I attach great importance to preserving voluntary service, but I cannot help thinking that the Government set the principle at little value.
I recall that it was said time and again on Second Reading that one should only serve the community where one lives. On that argument, presumably, one could be a member of the W.R.V.S., but not take meals on wheels to people living elsewhere than in one's own area. Are we to expect that boy scouts and their helpers will be debarred from joining cert-am troops unless they are locally resident?
If hon. Members opposite adhere to this principle, at the next General Election, when they are looking for Labour Party workers, they will be thin on the


ground. If they are to tell their workers, "You can come and help only if you live in the area," I shall be even sorrier for the party opposite than at the moment.
I believe that to give time and money and thought and ability voluntarily enriches character. The community badly needs voluntary service. It is not easy to find people who are willing to give up the amount of time necessary to take on the full duties of local councils. It is even more difficult to find thoroughly able people who are free to do so.
9.45 p.m.
It ought not to be lost sight of that councils will be the poorer unless this series of Amendments is accepted. I was interested to read the case made out in the Second Reading debate by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I was appalled at the paucity of their arguments. The Home Secretary asked: is it not sensible that the residents of a housing estate in Leeds should be represented by someone living in Leeds rather than someone living in Oxfordshire? If a man living in Oxfordshire is keen enough to travel to and from Leeds to serve on the city council he is zealous and hard-working.
I cannot follow that argument at all. It has been said twice during the debate that it is for the people to decide whether they accept someone who lives inside or outside an area. As we come to the end of the debate I am searching hopefully for genuine reasons why Clause 15 should go through as it stands.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, on Second Reading with condescension, and showing an attitude which was totally insensitive, and displaying a complete lack of understanding, said that there was nothing to prevent people standing as candidates in the area in which they live. I would contrast that with a statement he made a little later, which contains some small degree of self-satisfaction. He said:
The people of Kilmarnock would not allow me to leave Kilmarnock."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1027.]
They would be all too keen for him to leave. Yet he perists with this stupid argument.
As anyone who has served on a local council knows, there are many differences between the various councils. One might

just as well tell a man who is used to working with a blast furnace to go off and amuse himself with a sparkler as tell someone who is used to the blood and thunder of a city council to spend his time in the dreamy peacefulness of a parish council. People will not be told where to go, where to give their services. They will give their services if it is made easy for them and if they have an interest in an area.
I made this point briefly in an intervention on Second Reading, but I make it again now because it is so important. Hon. Members should understand that frequently in big cities one is very much nearer to the ward one represents if one lives just outside the city boundary than one is to a ward on the other side of the city. I am thinking of my own City of Birmingham, where there are many parts which are geographically very close to the places of residence of the councillors. Birmingham is one of the places which will suffer greatly unless this series of Amendments is accepted, and I have great pleasure in supporting them.

Mr. Charles Mapp: The debate so far has avoided the realities of the facts of life. What we ought to be talking about are not the uncommon people. The inference is that these uncommon people with knowledge lie on one side of the political spectrum. I know that the Opposition will not like that, but basically it is their belief, and that is why they are hanging on to this privilege, which should have gone many years ago. Let me bring this home to the area in which I am profoundly interested.
I can see the point of living in a large county borough and then perhaps moving out of the boundary at some time. Where are one's loyalties then most likely to be? This is the supreme test. For 40 years I have lived just inside the boundaries of Cheshire, and within the environment of Manchester. I have seen people with a local knowledge and understanding torn between their loyalties to the regional centre—and that is what Manchester is—and their loyalties to the rural area of Cheshire.
This is nearly always expressed, here and in the counties, in terms of the rate. They live, rightly or wrongly, away from the city and in the more salubrious areas. I do not blame them for that. But if


they do that for the purpose of bearing a smaller rate, they must accept the con sequences.
I have seen all too frequently this struggle between Conservative Members with some philosophy of life. They try to do the right thing by a great city like Manchester, with all its difficulties and problems, but finally rally to the counter side of the argument because, in the long run, they are not concerned with the development of the social structure of our large cities. They are primarily concerned with how much it will cost, residentially or in office or business terms, to keep the city going. We consistently hear an argument not about whether we are getting value for money in terms of services or rates, but about cutting the rate, however it is done.
A rate precept should be seen to be a worthwhile investment. Hon. Members opposite want the best of both worlds. They are very lucky if they can continue to get it. It is my choice if I continue to live in a county borough with heavy financial problems, or if I seek to go into the country for reasons of amenity, and so on, I should not seek to impose any influence on the county borough, which has enough problems without the reactionary influences of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. John Tilney: I am astonished by the ignorance of the hon. Gentleman. Does he not know Lancashire? Does he not realise that Liverpool owns a vast number of houses outside the county borough boundary and that people are compulsorily moved from the centre of the city to areas outside? That is not of their own choice. Are we to deprive them of all say in the government of Liverpool and housing matters?

Mr. Mapp: I am aware of these elementary facts.
The Opposition have not argued the case for the Amendment, which refers to
a principal place of work within the area of the authority".
Why did we not get an explanation from the Opposition Front Bench about this matter? Do they wish to have it both ways? Are we to assume that this covers the manual or the clerical worker who spends his life in the heart of a great city

like Manchester, Liverpool, or London, and lives in Cheshire or Middlesex? The Amendment would seem to imply that we should give him a second opportunity to serve the public, but the Opposition have not said so. They have not told us how a town clerk would be able to decide whether a civil servant working in this city in one office for one year, or a railway clerk working at one station for a year, should qualify under the verbiage in the Amendment.
The Opposition's case tumbles because it is not an attempt to draw into local government the best that there is in the areas. It is merely a justification of a vested interest. The comparison of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) with this House is false. One can live in the Greater London Council area 15 miles away from another point in that area and still be available as a candidate. In the same way one can live at the extreme end of the City of Manchester and be available for any ward or any party. The analogy with this House is quite false. This is an argument for the old plural vote and it is now time to put that on one side and bring ourselves up to date.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I am aghast at this most reactionary proposal. It is a reaction to the days long before the invention of the motor car, to the days of the horse and buggy. It is a reaction to the time when the businessman lived above his business premises. My experience of local government is no doubt less than that of many hon. Gentleman opposite, but I have had the experience of canvassing in local government elections along the streets of rural towns and in my constituency.
In my home town, which I once had the honour to represent, there is a long street with tradesmen's shops on each side, above which there is living accommodation. That accommodation is no longer occupied by the people who own the shops. With the coming into general use of the motor car people find it more convenient to live away from their business premises. This is not peculiar to one part of England. The fact of living outside the borough boundary does not remove the interest of those people from


the activities of the borough and their business in it.
I cannot follow the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), who thinks that people make a long appraisal of the rate situation before deciding where to move. The opinions of most wives on the desirability of living accommodation do not take account of rates, and I should be surprised if people were guided by an appreciation of the likely rates in their choice of accommodation.
An important part is played in local government by the people who, in earlier generations, would have lived inside the borough, but who now live outside. They are doing the same work as their ancestors, and they are able to do it because they use a car.
The responsibilities of the local council can be undertaken only by people of real ability who have business training and education. There is on the Walsall Council a most distinguished industrial ist, a man of first-class ability. He gives his time on a voluntary basis to the ratepayers of Walsall. He would not devote the same time, for example, to the rural district of Lichfield, because their problems are not problems with which he wants to deal. Therefore his services to local government will be lost if this Bill goes through unamended.
These circustances could be illustrated by many other examples, but I want to stress the position in the towns of the West Midlands—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ross.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I want to stress the case of the Midlands where, over the last 20 years, there has been a massive emigration from the towns. Some of it no doubt is due to slum clearance, but there has been a general move from towns to suburbs. It is being encouraged by successive Governments while, at the same time, the administration of those towns has become more intricate.
It seems to be complete folly to cut down the possible catchment area for members of these very important councils with their great responsibilities. There can only be one outcome. In future, the chairmen of committees of local authorities will be placed in the position of having to rubber-stamp the activities of their officials. That is not what they are appointed to do. However, if many of the most able and experienced people are lost as a result of our passing this Bill, that will be the result, and the administration of our towns will suffer.
We face and are fighting against the introduction of what can only be called machine politics on American lines into our great cities. If this Clause is passed unamended, it will pave the way to that situation. That is why I am opposed to it.

Mr. William Hamling: I was very interested in the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) as to the reason Tory wives in the Midlands chased their husbands out of urban areas. Certainly, it is not because of the rates. Presumably it is because they prefer the amenities of the suburban and rural areas to those of the towns.
Surely that is one of the best arguments in favour of the Government's proposition. We are saying, "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be, also." When people move from the towns, they cannot be expected to have the same interest in the standards of public service there that they used to have. That is precisely the point.
I will illustrate this if hon. Gentlemen opposite will be patient. Earlier, they asked for consultations and requested that people's opinions should be considered. However, it appears that they are not disposed to listen to opinions from this side of the Committee, which was evident when my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) was speaking just now. Here is a man with tremendous experience of local government, yet hon. Gentlemen opposite were laughing and giggling and having private conversations amongst themselves when he was speaking. They were not in the least bit interested in the arguments being advanced by somebody with much more experience of local government than any of them has.
Can we expect people to be interested in the standards of public service if they do not have to endure the low standards in the older urban areas? I speak with some experience of Liverpool, having been born there, having lived for many years, and having, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) knows, stood at Parliamentary elections there. I probably know Liverpool better than I know the borough where I now live.
We all know that there was a time when all the civic leaders of Liverpool lived in Liverpool. There was a time when the top businessmen and the leading professional men lived in the city and had a keen interest in the city's affairs. All the leading aldermen and councillors lived in the city, and there was a strong correlation between the leading citizens, the leading professional people, the leading trade unionists, and the city council. Today that is no longer so. Today, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the leader of the Liverpool City Council does not live in Liverpool.

Mr. Tilney: On a point of order. That is entirely untrue.

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Perhaps I ought not to weary the Committee with the obvious.

Mr. Tilney: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his statement.

Mr. Hamling: I shall withdraw it. I was thinking of Councillor Entwistle who, as the hon. Gentleman knows, was

until recently leader of the Liverpool City Council. What I am saying is that for several years the local city council was led by a Tory who did not live in Liverpool. I regard that as a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, first, because he was a Tory, and secondly because he did not live in the city. I am putting first things first.
What the party opposite wants is the best of both worlds. Hon. Gentlemen opposite want to live outside the city. They do not want to endure the dirt and discomfort of the older urban areas, but they still want to govern them. We say that if we really want local government—and that is really what the argument is about—the people who should govern are those who live locally, and not miles away outside the areas they claim to represent.
The argument on the first Amendment—the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was not here to hear it, so perhaps he will now listen for a change—was that people ought to govern who have a stake in paying the rates in the area. That is not what hon. Gentlemen opposite are arguing now. They are now saying that those who have given up a stake in local government should continue to enjoy it. They are speaking not with two voices, but with several.
The other argument which seemed to crop up in all the speeches from the benches opposite was that all the best representatives live outside a town. That surely is what one should read into the speeches which have been made tonight from the benches opposite. My hon. Friend made an important point when he asked to whom the electors go when they are in trouble. They do not go to the Entwistles, who live in Crosby, or Birkdale, which is even further away.

Mr. John Smith: rose —

Mr. Hamling: No.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Hamling: I shall not give way. People who are in trouble go to the man who lives in the same street as they do.

Mr. John Smith: rose —

Mr. Hamling: No.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Hamling: I shall not give way.
I am not talking about the rotten boroughs of Westminster—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They come to the man who lives locally. This is the important point about local government, that people want councillors who live near them and who know and share their problems. That is what local government is about and what my right hon. Friend is here seeking to do is to make local government really local and more significant to the people of the community—

Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order. It is in order for an hon. Gentleman to refer to a seat which is represented by one of my hon. Friends as "a rotten borough"?

The Chairman: Whether it is desirable or not, I do not think that it is a matter which the Chair should require to be withdrawn.

Mr. Hamling: If hon. Members are so sensitive, I will withdraw any reference to that particular rotten borough.

Mr. John Smith: I do not want to talk about my own constituency; I would much sooner talk about Liverpool, which is a long way from either of our constituencies. But this Entwistle about whom we have heard so much, and whom the Liverpool electors do not want—did they elect him?

Mr. Hamling: What is certainly true about Entwistle now is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]—that the Tory Party in Liverpool did not want him at all, because it was the Tory Party who chucked him out.—[Interruption.]—If the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) wants to test public opinion—[Interruption.]—I will take him on in West Woolwich any night he likes. He can also go back to the Lords.
Do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite see nothing unrepresentative in electing councillors who do not live in the boroughs? That, surely is the point—

Mr. F. A. Burden: What about the Scilly Isles?

Mr. Hamling: Let the electors choose, say they, but the fact is that, in solidly Tory areas like Kingston it is not the

electors who choose the representatives, but the local Tory Party. If the local Tory Party puts up a donkey in Kingston, it would be elected—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member is so keen to give the electors a free choice, will he suggest to the Patronage Secretary that he moves the Writ for Walthamstow, East?

Mr. Hamling: If he is so keen on free votes, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will ask the Chief Whip to take the three-line Whip off this one.
What the Opposition have told us tonight is that the Tories in Camden are so hard up that, out of 300,000 electors, they cannot get a sufficient number of decent Tories. That is precisely what this argument is about. I suggest that this debate is supposed to be about local government and that what the Opposition are asking for is not local government in Camden, Kingston, or anywhere else, but Government by outsiders.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. R. Bonner Pink: I will not follow the line pursued by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling)—

Mr. Hamling: Go on, have a go.

Mr. Pink: —because like the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) I have considerable experience of local government—only 20 years com pared with his 35—and if the Bill becomes law I shall be in a similar position to him. At the end of my term as alderman I shall be obliged to leave the City Council of Portsmouth because I live 1·8 miles beyond the city boundary.
The Government are taking an extremely retrograde step. The trend today is towards regionalisation and expanding boundaries. Despite that, the Government are putting forward a proposal which is designed to restrict that process and the number of people who will be eligible to play a rô le in local activities.
Have the Government consulted their supporters in the constituencies? I would be surprised if they have and I would be even more surprised if any local Labour Party organisers are still active. As people in local government are aware, there is already the greatest difficulty


in obtaining candidates, even more difficulty in obtaining good ones and yet more difficulty in getting first-class candidates. By this proposal the Government are reducing the field of recruitment even further. The Government appear to have forgotten the trend towards commuting. Boundaries are artificial nowadays, particularly where a community of interest exists. The Maud Report was reasonable in its suggestions, including the "place of work" qualification.
The main employer in Portsmouth is the Navy. Half the council houses built in Portsmouth since the war have been within the city boundaries and half have been beyond them. If a man working in the local dockyard wants to serve on the council and another man working alongside him wishes to do the same and they both ask for council houses and get them, one may be given a council house in Portsmouth and the other may get a house just outside the city. Their interests probably lie with their jobs in Portsmouth, yet the man who must live outside the city will not be eligible to take an active part in the local authority.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): While I do not accept that all the arguments in this debate are onesided, the common factor of work does not seem to be as relevant in local government terms as the schools one's children attend, the place where one pays one's rates and so on, and these are usually located not where one works but where one lives.

Mr. Pink: I do not agree. The question of work and interest lies where one lives or has lived, but also where one is prepared to serve in a voluntary capacity on a local authority. One will never be prepared to serve in that capacity unless one has a genuine interest in the authority.
If this proposal is implemented we in Portsmouth will lose many councillors and I am sure that they will not seek re-election in other authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] They have no interest in other authorities. Their interest lies in Portsmouth. We need good councillors and aldermen. It is already difficult to obtain them and I fear that the Government are making matters even worse.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

The Chairman: Mr. Ross.

Mr. Ross: rose —

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Ross: We have been quite a long time on this Amendment and I think it right that I should put the Government view. An hon. Member who made a speech on the last Amendment was not present when I referred to him in replying to the debate, but as soon as I rise to answer this debate, in which I have listened to every speech, he makes his usual rumble of interventions.
We are dealing with three Amendments which would put aside the whole question of the non-resident vote and concentrate on changing the qualification for candidature. I think that that is a right interpretation of these Amendments. It is a change from the property qualification. We should be glad that hon. Members opposite no longer entirely cling to the narrowness of the past although they still cling to the idea that a person who owns a piece of land, whether he occupies it or not and no matter where he resides, shall have the right by virtue of that ownership to stand for election in that area. That may be the only connection he has with the city, the county or the borough, but just because he owns a piece of land he is deemed to have that right.
As was pointed out on Second Reading, it may be only the ownership of a piece of land in a graveyard. Hon. Members opposite say that should give him adequate qualification to stand as a candidate in the area. By these Amendments hon. Members opposite would forgo the non-resident qualification and concentrate on the suggestion that no matter where anyone lives so long as his principal place of work is within the city, the county district, or borough—and not only the professional classes on which hon. Members opposite have concentrated so much—should have the right to stand as a candidate in the area in which he works.
Let us see what this Amendment means. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), who moved the Amendment, did not explain it. It would mean that all 6,000 people working in Linwood, Renfrewshire, about 50 per


cent. of whom live there, should have the right to put up as candidates. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I shall tell hon. Members why not. It is for the simple reason that in many areas more people would stand as candidates than the number who have a right to vote. This could lead to the destruction of community identity in the area to be governed.

Sir D. Glover: rose —

Sir Knox Cunningham: Scared?

Mr. Ross: I am scared of no one from Northern Ireland.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman scared?

The Chairman: Order. Mr. Ross.

Mr. Ross: We like to see within our town councils, county councils and city councils members who have a close identity with their areas. The people who have the closest identity with the area are those who live there, whose children are educated there, and who are dependent upon the services provided locally practically every day of their lives. We will lose this identity if the electorate is swamped with potential candidates from outside. The position could arise where there would not be proper representation of the members of the community. I assure hon. Members that, even if they do not realise it, it is realised in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Worcester and the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made a great point about our consulting the local authority associations. We consulted the local authority associations in Scotland and we got a very different attitude from them from that which came from the English associations. The Convention of Royal Burghs, which is a very old association and which represents every burgh in Scotland, took no exception to this proposal. The Association of County Councils took no exception to it. Glasgow decided to support the proposal. Edinburgh opposed it. We have had no word from Dundee and Aberdeen. We have not had that opposition, for the simple reason that the people of Scotland have a fairer respect for the traditions of democracy.

Sir D. Glover: I invite the Secretary of State to follow the logic of his argument. One of the most able Members on his side repersenting Scotland is the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). Must he apply for the Chiltern Hundreds tomorrow?

Mr. Ross: We are not talking about the Parliamentary situation. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is the same thing, he should have been here to listen to the hon. Member for Worcester, who, having emphasised that it was not the same thing, went on to plead that he did not want it.

Mr. Peter Walker: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's wonderful theory about the electorate being swamped by too many candidates from all over the country apply just as much to Parliamentary elections?

Mr. Ross: Not at all, because, as the hon. Gentleman himself admitted, we are here in a national sense, in a national Assembly dealing with national matters and not with individual and local matters. It cannot be right for a majority of people who live outside a city to determine what shall be the rates within that city, or what shall be the educational system, not for their children, but for the children of those living in the city. A line must be drawn here; and we are drawing it in the right way.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite spoiled their own case by making the suggestion, as the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames did, that this is election rigging. I hope that hon. Members opposite will make up their minds as to the authorship of the story which was told. We heard the same story twice, with the authorship being assigned first to Harold Macmillan and then to F. E. Smith.
The suggestion by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that this is election rigging was not worthy of him. The epithets he used about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department fell short of the debating standards I expect from the right hon. Member. I assure hon. Members that we, too, are concerned about democracy. We, too, want to ensure that our local councils are truly representative of the people in their areas. I got the impression from the hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight)—I do


not know whether she realised what she was saying—that the only good people were those who lived outside.

Mrs. Knight: If the right hon. Gentleman will read my speeches as carefully as I have read his, he will know that he is doing me an injustice.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I am sorry, but I listened very carefully to what the hon. Lady said, and the impression which she gave me—I am sure that it was shared by my hon. Friends—was that all the people who lived outside or qualified for candidature on the basis of non-resident voting or in respect of ownership of land were top executives, all able people, all people who have time. The suggestion that local government would wither away because of what we are proposing was an insult to people in local government and to our populace.
The area covered by the Greater London Council is 620 square miles. There is an electorate of over 5¼ million. I understand that the number of people who might lose their positions and have to be replaced is about 116–116 out of an electorate of 5¼ million. Is it suggested that we cannot find replacements within the area and we must go outside? What nonsense.

Mr. Peter Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Labour Party on the G.L.C. had to go outside the council's area for its leader?

Mr. Ross: It is not a case of having to go outside. I assure hon. Members that if we had been rigging, if we were concerned more about personalities than about principles, we might well not have taken the step we have. But we are concerned about principles. I am not as

despondent about the future of local government as some hon. Members opposite are. I cannot believe that in Glasgow, with a population of over 1 million, we cannot find 14 people of all parties to replace those who might possibly be cut out.
Of course, we respect the work which these people have done. It is not a case of getting rid of them. Many changes which are made result in hard decisions for some people, but I should hope that many would continue to serve. They can continue to serve by acquiring a residence qualification. They can continue to serve in the areas in which they live.
The hon. Lady seems to think that I was condescending. She will appreciate that if any people have to go out from the burgh in which I live—I do not know whether there will be any—they can serve on the county council if they live in the county. They can serve on the education side there, which is one of the greatest interests of the borough authorities. They are not being cut off from public service. The suggested comparison with the W.R.V.S. was the reductio ad absurdum. I cannot think that the hon. Lady appreciates the value of local authority work if she makes that com parison.
I have listened to all our debates. A tremendous amount of heat has been raised on this Amendment, but there is no justification for it. If hon. Members examine carefully what they are proposing here, they will realise that it is not an extension which could properly be supported in the context of our municipal democracy. We want to try to keep our municipal authorities truly representative of the people within their areas, and this is the best way to do it.

Mr. Hogg: The speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland was one of the most preposterous and bedraggled I have ever heard in the course of a rather long experience of Parliament. But, preposterous and bedraggled as it was, it was nothing compared with the deafening silence from the Home Secretary throughout this debate. He has not been present for any part of it.
I sometimes wish there were an English Nationalist Party. The problems of Scotland are no doubt dealt with calamitously enough by the Secretary of State, who was as unchivalrous in opposition as he is now ineffective in office. But that the Home Secretary did not find it in his heart to be present for any part of this the most important debate on his own Bill is little short of an insult to the people of England. We are used to being insulted in the House, but the people at least have the right to expect their Home Secretary to be present for some part of this most important debate.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the debate had generated a good deal of heat. Although it was at times noisy and even boisterous, I believe that it was singularly good-tempered. I am glad of that, because it is important to be able to debate in a good-tempered way subjects about which there is obviously deep feeling. But the right hon. Gentleman should be under no misapprehension. The fact that tem person both sides have been fairly cheerful should not blind him to the fact that we on this side sincerely believe that we are debating a thoroughly contemptible and despicable proposal by the Government.
After the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) asked a question which has not been effectively answered by the right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member opposite: why should not the local electors in a borough or county—who by and large are the same as those who vote for or against Members of Parliament—be able to decide for themselves whom they wish to elect and whom they do not? The right hon. Gentleman said that at Linwood perhaps twice as many people would be entitled to stand as would be entitled to vote. But let me cite my own Parliamentary constituency. About 33

million people are entitled to stand for the borough of St. Marylebone; only about 50,000 are entitled to vote in it. But I do not find that the 33 million swamp the 50,000. On the contrary, they manage to select a thoroughly responsible Member of Parliament.
Let us consider the case of the Parliamentary constituency of Huyton. The electors there think that a right hon. Gentleman who lives in Hampstead when he is not Prime Minister and will soon be residing there again, and who spends his holidays in the Scilly Isles, is an adequate representative for Huyton. I do not agree with them. I think that he is a thoroughly bad representative for Huyton. But I do not wish to take away from the electors of Huyton the privilege, which they seem to value, of having him represent them in Parliament. Yet the Secretary of State for Scotland says, "We lose the unique flavour of local government if we do not take away from the voters to choose whom they please to serve them in local government."

Mr. W. Howie: rose —

Lieut-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Sit down.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) must not distract me from my argument, because I am still dealing with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman says that local government is one thing and national government is another. Under the Government's proposals, they will be. Voters in local government elections will not be allowed to choose whom they wish to represent them, whereas in national government they will be able to do so. The right hon. Gentleman never troubled to answer the question from the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir D. Foot) as to why this should be so.
It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the Amendment is far more modest than the proposal put by the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, but surely, from the point of view of the benches opposite, that is precisely why it should be accepted. I would have gone all the way with the proposal of the right hon. and learned


Gentleman, but we have sought only to embody the rather more modest proposals of the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations. Why do the Government reject them? We have not yet heard.
In what was perhaps the most absurd part of all of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said, "If they do not live there, let them get a residence qualificacation. Let them move." Never since Marie Antoinette invited the poor to eat cake instead of bread has there been a more illogical and foolish observation

Mr. Peter Mahon: rose —

Mr. Hogg: I will give way shortly. I am still dealing with the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is another point—

Mr. Peter Mahon: rose —

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Sit down.

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I must ask the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) not to call out.

Mr. Hogg: This is getting rather out of hand.
There is another point which the right hon. Gentleman should have attended to. The question of principle is whether the right hon. Gentleman will trust the electorate to have the representatives in local government that it wants. His answer is "No, I do not trust them." But the Amendment is not only about the right to elect whom one pleases. It is also about the opportunity to serve the electorate. The Government are not only denying the electorate the right to choose whom it likes as its representatives, but are also denying to a large number of honourable citizens the opportunity to serve whom they wish. These are both thoroughly despicable and undemocratic proposals.

Mr. Peter Mahon: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sorry to interrupt him in such an important part of his speech. He makes the assertion that the people choose the candidates. The parties choose the candidates.

Hon. Members: Oh.

10.45 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman had finished his intervention. I am sure that he will come to a quick conclusion.

Mr. Peter Mahon: The truth is very often unpalatable. Despite the uproar from the other side, what I have said is the absolute truth. The parties choose the candidates and invariably the Conservative Party chooses candidates who live outside the borough or city, while the Labour Party chooses candidates with residential qualifications.

Mr. Hogg: I am delighted to know that the practice of licensing Labour candidates like dogs is to be discontinued at the next election. We are, most of us, elected by the electors and not chosen by our party.
What I was saying, when the hon. Member somewhat illogically intervened, was that in addition to denying the right of the voter to choose between candidates with different types of qualification, local candidates if they prefer them, non-local candidates if they prefer them, the Government have determined, for reasons which are only too painfully obvious, to deny a number of public servants the right to serve voluntarily. But there is one thing that they cannot do, and that is prevent us from reversing their despicable decisions, and that will soon happen.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: At this stage it may be impossible to rescue the debate from the strife of political warfare. May I interpose one standpoint, which does not seem to have been sufficiently aired, except by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot). I see the force of his argument, that if the electors want to choose someone who does not live locally, and does not have any material interest in their ward, city, or country, then they are entitled to do so. That is the real element of democracy. One of my fears about the provision that he makes would be that a person may have no substantial interest in that area—he may live a long way off and yet may wish to represent it because it is an area of political influence, say, the Metropolitan area.
This may ultimately have the opposite effect from that which is suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite. In other words,


it may siphon off the talent in the country to certain areas of crucial political importance, and deprive other areas, which are not so politically important, of the available talent to run their local authorities. It is a risk that I would be prepared to take.
I see some difficulty in the proposal made by the party opposite in dealing with the residence qualification. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Maryiebone (Mr. Hogg) suggested that this is the most important part of the Bill. We are discussing the rights of a number of councillors, mostly Conservative, to stand for their local authorities. This he says, is more important than the rights of 3,500,000 young people to vote in a General Election, or the right of the elector to know which party he is voting for. This is the important part of the Bill. It betrays an unfortunate order of priorities in his mind.
I concede that there is a principle which has been completely submerged by this tirade of party warfare and, although I had doubts originally about the way in which I would vote, the ferocity of the attack by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has made medecide to support the Government. I do so with this qualification. This is an issue which ought to be considered dispassionately, away from the heat of debate. It might be desirable for the Government, before Report, to consider whether it is right to impose any qualifications for councillors. It was never suggested during 13 years of Conservative rule, and I wonder whether the time has not come to widen the qualification for councillors in a way which is not met by the Amendment but which might be met by abandoning qualifications. If we are to be divided on party lines, I stand with my party.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: Amendment No. 48, which stands in my name, was selected for debate with the main Amendment, and I wish to speak briefly on it. It was surprising that the Secretary of State for Scotland was able to reply to the debate without once mentioning the report of the Maud Committee, which contains the specific recommendation embodied in Amendment No. 48.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) referred to 13 years of Conservative government. During those 13 years the Maud Committee was set up. It reported only last year and the recommendation to which I have referred was a major part of its Report. The Committee was charged to consider local government in the light of modern conditions. Modern conditions are now such that many more people than hitherto are obliged to work in one place and live elsewhere. They should have the right to serve in local government, and be encouraged to do so, in that part of the country where they work and spend over half their lives.
In Central London and the City of Westminster it is not possible, as hon. Gentleman have suggested, for people to serve the council of the area in which they live. A person working in the centre of London does not finish work until 5.30 or 6.30 in the evening, and by the time he gets home the local council will have finished its meeting. Many authorities outside cities meet in the afternoons or very early evening, so the opportunity for such a person to serve on a local authority is denied.
My constituency forms part of the City of Westminster. Of 70 members of the council, nine are non-resident members, five of them are chairmen or vice-chairmen of committees of major importance, three others have served as mayor or deputy mayor, and the present Labour leader would also be disqualified by this Bill if it was accepted in its present form. The Government would do well to spend a little time considering the point argued so strongly in the Maud Committee's Report and embodied in Amendment No. 48.
I end my remarks by repeating the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Maryiebone (Mr. Hogg), that there is nothing in our proposal to limit the choice of the people to vote for whomsoever they please. It was a predecessor of mine as hon. Member for Paddington, South, Lord Randolph Churchill, who used the slogan," Trust the people ". There could be no better one for the Government to adopt at the moment, though I see inherent in it the dangers to their political future.

Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) rose in his place


and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Division No. 32.]
AYES
[10.56 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glover, Sir Douglas
More, Jasper


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Astor, John
Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Awdry, Daniel
Gower, Raymond
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grant, Anthony
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Murton, Oscar


Balniel, Lord
Gresham Cooke, R.
Neave, Airey


Barber, Rt. H.n. Anthony
Grieve, Percy
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Batsford, Brian
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Nott, John


Beam sh, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Onslow, Cranley


Bell, Ronald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bessell, Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pardoe, John


Biffen, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hastings, Stephen
Peel, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Blaker, Peter
Hay, John
Peyton, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Body, Richard
Heseltine, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Bossom, Sir Clive
Higgins, Terrence L.
Pounder, Rafton


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hill, J. E. B.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Braine, Bernard
Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior, J. M. L.


Brew's, John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pym, Francis


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hooson, Emlyn
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hordern, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hornby, Richard
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bryan, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Buchanan-Smith,Al'c' (Angus,N&amp;M)
Hunt, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Royle, Anthony


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Channon, H. P. G.
Jopling, Michael
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Keith
Scott, Nicholas


Clark, Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooke, Robert
Kerby, Capt Henry
Sharples, Richard


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kimball, Marcus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b; gh &amp; Whitby)


Cordle, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Silvester, Frederick


Corfield, F. V.
Kirk, Peter
Sinclair, Sir George


Costa n, A. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Crouch, David
Lambton, Viscount
Speed, Keith


Crowder, F. P.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Cunn ngaham, Sir Knox
Lane, David
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, Anthony


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Davidson,James (Aberdeenshire,W.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsmith, Langstone)
Summers, Sir Spencer


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Tapsell, Peter


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Loveys, W. H.
Taylor,Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Teeling, Sir William


Doughty, Charles
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Temple, John M.


Drayson, G. B.
McMaster, Stanley
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Eden, Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tilney, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maginnis, John E.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Emery, Peter
Marples, Rt Hn. Ernest
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Errington, Sir Eric
Marten, Neil
Vickers, Dame Joan


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Angus
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Farr, John
Mawby, Ray
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fisher, Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wall, Patrick


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Webster, David


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Foster, Sir John
Miscampbell, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C)

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 226, Noes 240.

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Wright, Esmond
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Woodnutt, Mark
Wylie, N. R.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Worsley, Marcus
Younger, Hn. George
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Gardner, Tony
Mikardo, Ian


Albu, Austen
Ginsburg, David
Millan, Bruce


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Alldritt, Walter
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Allen, Scholefield
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Anderson, Donald
Gregory, Arnold
Molloy, William


Armstrong, Ernest
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bagier, Gordon A, T.
Hamling, William
Moyle, Roland


Barnett, Joel
Hannan, William
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Beaney, Alan
Harper, Joseph
Murray, Albert


Bence, Cyril
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Neal, Harold


Bidwell, Sydney
Haseldine, Norman
Norwood, Christopher


Bishop, E. S.
Hazell, Bert
Oakes, Gordon


Blackburn, F.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Malley, Brian


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Henig, Stanley
Orme, Stanley


Booth, Albert
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oswald, Thomas


Boston, Terence
Hilton, W. S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Boyden, James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bradley, Tom
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brooks, Edwin
Howie, W.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hoy, James
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Pentland, Norman


Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Probert, Arthur


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hynd, John
Rankin, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rees, Merlyn


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Sir Barnett
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jeger,Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Chapman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Coe, Denis
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull,W.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dalyell, Tarn
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kelley, Richard
Short, Mrs. René e (W'hampton,N.E.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Skeffington, Arthur


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Slater, Joseph


Dell, Edmund
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Small, William


Dewar, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Snow, Julian


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lestor, Miss Joan
Spriggs, Leslie


Dickens, James
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stonehouse, Ht. Hn. John


Dunn, James A.
Lomas, Kenneth
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Swingler, Stephen


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Symonds, J. B.


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McCann, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Ellis, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Thornton, Ernest


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Tinn, James


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Mackie, John
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Faulds, Andrew
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wallace, George


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu,J.P.W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Weitzman, David


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Manuel, Archie
Wellbeloved, James


Ford, Ben
Mapp, Charles
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth
Whitlock, William


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wilkins, W. A.


Freeson, Reginald
Mayhew, Christopher
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)







Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Winnick, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Woof, Robert
Mr. Walter Harrison.

The Chairman: I understand that Amendment No. 28 is not now to be moved. The next Amendment selected is No. 29.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 29 in page 14, line 14, at end add:
(2) This section shall not apply to Scotland.
If the terms of the Explanatory Memorandum are correct, then this Amendment is unnecessary. It states in terms:
Since the law in Scotland about local government elections differs in several respects from that in England and Wales, some provisions of the Bill, e.g. clauses 15 … do not apply to Scotland.
This Amendment is down partly because, in our view, that statement is misleading and wrong. In these circumstances, the legal position and the effect of this Clause in Scotland should be made clear, because many hon. Members, perhaps on both sides but certainly on this side, have had representations made in this connection.
The position is that qualifications for membership of a local authority, and for nominations for candidature, is covered by the provisions of Section 50 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. That Section lays down in perfectly clear terms that to be qualified for nomination to be elected, or be a member of a local authority, the person is a local government elector for the area, or any part thereof, of the authority.
The standard or test applied for candidature is the test for voting capacity. That links up with Sections 2 and 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, Section 2 invoking the qualifications for electors—persons entitled to vote as electors are persons resident in the area or with a non-resident qualification.
Section 5 provides that the non-resident qualification so far as Scotland is con cerned is that
in an electoral area in Scotland if he is the owner, or occupier as tenant, of any lands and heritages within the area..
That provision was amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956 to read:

… in an electoral area in Scotland if he is occupying as owner or tenant of any lands and heritages within the area
of a certain annual value.
If that is the position, as in my submission it clearly is, Clause 15 undoubtedly applies to Scotland. The only parts of the Clause which do not apply to Scotland are the references to the Local Government Act, 1933.
I was anxious that the position should be clearly stated on the record because some of the things which were said in the Second Reading debate were confusing. I refer, in particular, to what the Secretary of State said at column 1024:
… in connection with Clause 15 and the change which we have made in connection with the abolition of the non-resident vote in England and Wales. Naturally, this does not apply in Scotland, because we have already wiped it out there. I refer to the qualification of a candidate by virtue of an ownership of land or property."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1024.]
I thought that this was rather confusing, although I accept that in the following column he stated the position correctly. It seemed to us that in view of what was said in the Explanatory Memorandum, a clear statement should be made about the position and about the application of this Clause to Scotland.
This matter has been developed and argued at some length on earlier Amendments. Therefore, I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee repeating those arguments, but I would say that in Glasgow—we have been concerned so far with England and Wales—the abolition of the non-resident vote and the effect which that abolition has on qualifications for candidature will be very serious indeed. I implore the Government to think again even at this late stage about this situation.
Some point was made by the Secretary of State that very few people are involved. Of course, that is true. In Edinburgh, I understand, only just over 400 people are involved in this way, but if 400 people are involved and it is possible to draw on those people, to get co-operation and participation in local authority work, I would have thought that the price of the alternative vote was


a price worth paying. It seems to us that this will affect the development of local government in Scotland. At the moment, it will not affect Edinburgh Corporation, but it certainly affects Glasgow Corporation materially and, for all I know, it may well affect a number of other corporations in Scotland.
I ask the Government to give serious consideration to this Amendment. I appreciate that there are drafting difficulties; the Amendment is defective in drafting form, for there should have been a consequential repeal of part of the Third Schedule. However, the principle of the Amendment is clear. It is to widen as far as possible the choice open to electors in Scotland in the selection of their local government representatives. In this day and age, that choice should be widened rather than narrowed.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I support the plea of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), because I was concerned at the trend of some remarks earlier, especially the claim that it was the parties which chose the candidate. I represent a constituency—possibly there are few such left—in which, generally, there are no parties in local government. By that I do not mean that people stand as "independents" who are really something else, but that people genuinely stand under their own names because they are willing to serve the community. The choice of candidates is simply between individuals on their merits and not between platforms or programmes.
These areas tend to come under the smaller local authorities. In my constituency, there are eight burgh and three county councils. Many of the boundaries of burgh councils, as is well known, are very much out of date. Many towns have physically spread beyond their own boundaries. The centre of one town in my constituency runs through the centre of a housing scheme: people on one side could not stand as candidates for the council, while those on the other could.
These distinctions are wholly artificial. I am concerned more about the problems of the smaller authorities than with the difficulties of the big cities which the hon. and learned Member mentioned.

To debar people from service to these small communities because of these narrow technicalities is quite wrong and would deprive people in my area of the services of a number of well-qualified local government servants.

Mr. Ross: The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) wanted a clarification of the law in Scotland, which I thought I had given on Second Reading. He referred also to some misunderstanding about the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:
Since the law in Scotland about local government elections differs in several respects from that in England and Wales, some provisions of the Bill e.g. clauses 15 (abolition of property qualification) … do not apply to Scotland.
Clause 15 deals, first, with the non-resident qualification for voting at local elections, and the property qualification comes under Section 57 (b) of the Local Government Act, 1933. Of course, there never has been a property qualification as in England, which gives anyone in Scotland the right to become a candidate. The right to non-residential registration is the right of occupation of premises, land and heritages in Scotland to the value of £10, either as a tenant or as an owner-occupier. I thought that that had been made clear.
It is the removal of that qualification for voting which would automatically disqualify anyone from becoming a candidate in an area in which previously he might have had a vote. It is very difficult to justify the plea for a different position for Scotland from that in England. There has never been a property qualification of this kind with regard to statutory town and county councils in Scotland from the time of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889 and the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900. It has always been based on registration as a voter. This does not apply to even the property qualification in England and Wales at present and I therefore could not accept that there should be a special provision in this case.
We have consulted the Association of County Councils, the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland and the cities, and I have given the results of those consultations. We met very much less opposition in Scotland—indeed, there was no opposition from some of them—and


it is fair to say that the proposal was accepted in Glasgow, despite the fact that Glasgow will be affected more than most other places by this change. About 5,500 non-resident electors will disappear from the register there, and 14 councillors, at least one of whom is a Labour councillor, will be affected.
In Edinburgh, the number will be 407, but as far as I am aware no councillors will be affected. In Dundee, 281 nonresident electors are on the register, but none of these are councillors. In Aberdeen, 264 people will be affected, but it is likely that only one councillor will be involved. Aberdeen was still considering the matter on 10th December.
Those who have listened to the long debate we have had on this subject will appreciate that exactly the same arguments apply to Scotland as apply to England and Wales. I cannot see how there will be a great downfall in local government and an undermining of the calibre of local government representatives. Indeed, I suggest that what we are doing is very much in line with Scottish tradition.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) spoke of his area. The matter is not as simple as he suggested because people can live in an area and work outside it. Equally, if somebody who lived and worked in an area suddenly moved outside it, and decided to work outside it as well, the hon. Gentleman would be conferring rights which, according to his argument, he would not wish to confer. Despite his comments about people having this right, the individual might never have had an office or shop in the area. Under his proposal such a person would still be deprived of the right to stand as a candidate. I could give examples from my part of Scotland. I could instance three small burghs which are jealous of one another and of their own services. They would take it badly if we so changed the law that somebody from outside was able to join one of their local authorities.
We had a typical rabble-rousing speech earlier from the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), but the sense of what he had in mind was drowned in noise. I am not sure that I would be prepared to speak on how

Scottish people feel about their elections and candidates. However, I agree with him that in many parts of Scotland it is fatal for one to put a party label on oneself at a local election. This is another difficulty of labels applying to local elections.
Change inevitably means hardship, but I believe that, on the whole, the Government are proposing a right change and that the arguments adduced in the general debate earlier about England and Wales are equally applicable to Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Apart from the merits of this Amendment, there was considerable doubt about the application of Clause 15 to Scotland. This was not clear because the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum appeared to indicate that the Clause as a whole did not apply to Scotland.
The Secretary of State read part of the paragraph, but did not read the whole of it. If he had done so he would have read the words in brackets after 18 "(in part)". If those words had come after the reference to Clause 15, it would have been clearer. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the words "abolition of property qualification" are there, but in Scotland that is dependent on the non-resident qualification. This is not the fault of the Secretary of State, but of the Home Secretary. We are glad to see him here for discussion of Clause 15. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman was not here."] The Government Front Bench is quite wrong, because I have been here listening to the debate. I may not have been visible to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench.
The Secretary of State tried to explain the Memorandum, but I thought that the Home Secretary would reply to debates on the Scottish Amendments. Arguments on this Amendment are similar to those deployed on earlier Amendments concerning the United Kingdom. In Scotland, it is also a thoroughly backward step to reduce the number of persons available as candidates for local government. It is deplorable to deprive persons of the right to serve their local community in Scotland as elsewhere and also to deprive local government electors of good and well proved candidates. I advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide the Committee on this Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

Division No. 33.]
AYES
[11.27 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Nott, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhart, Philip
Onslow, Cranley


Astor, John
Gower, Raymond
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Awdry, Daniel
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grieve, Percy
Pago, John (Harrow, W.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Balniel, Lord
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peel, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Peyton, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bell, Ronald
Harrison Brian (Maldon)
Pink, R. Bonner


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pounder, Rafton


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Prior, J. M. L.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hay, John
Pym, Francis


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Black, Sir Cyril
Heseltine, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hiley, Joseph
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Body, Richard
Hill, J. E. B.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bossom, Sir Olive
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hooson, Emlyn
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Braine, Bernard
Hordern, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brewis, John
Hornby, Richard
Royle, Anthony


Bromley-Davenport,Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Howell, David (Guildford)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, John
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott, Nicholas


Bryan, Paul
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharples, Richard


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Burden, F. A.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Silvester, Frederick


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jopling, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Carlisle, Mark
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Speed, Keith


Channon, H. P. G.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stainton, Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kirk, Peter
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Clark, Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Stodart, Anthony


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lambton, Viscount
Summers, Sir Spencer


Corfield, F. V.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Tapsell, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Lane, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor,Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crowder, F. P.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Teeling, Sir William


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Temple, John M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Longden, Gilbert
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dance, James
Loveys, W. H.
Tilney, John


Davidson,James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lubbock, Eric
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
MacArthur, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dean, Paul
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Lain
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maddan, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Doughty, Charles
Maginnis, John E.
Wall, Patrick


Drayson, G. B.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Weatherill, Bernard


Eden, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Webster, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maude, Angus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Elliott,R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Emery, Peter
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Errington, Sir Eric
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Eyre, Reginald
Miscampbell, Norman
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Farr, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus
Woodnutt, Mark


Fortescue, Tim
More, Jasper
Worsley, Marcus


Foster, Sir John
Morgan, Geraint (Debigh)
Wright, Esmond


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wylie, N. R.



Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Younger, Hn. George


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Monro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Neave, Airey
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Glover, Sir Douglas
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Hector Monro.

The Committee divided: Ayes 219, Noes 232.

NOES


Abse, Leo
Ginsberg, David
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Albu, Austen
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Alldritt, Walter
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Allen, Scholefield
Gregory, Arnold
Moyle, Roland


Anderson, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, Albert


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Neal, Harold


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Norwood, Christopher


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamling, William
Oakes, Gordon


Barnett, Joel
Hannan, William
O'Malley, Brian


Beaney, Alan
Harper, Joseph
Orbach, Maurice


Bence, Cyril
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Bidwell, Sydney
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oswald, Thomas


Bishop, E. S.
Haseldine, Norman
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Blackburn, F.
Hazell, Bert
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Palmer, Arthur


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Heffer, Eric S.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Booth, Albert
Henig, Stanley
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boston, Terence
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hilton, W. S.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boyden, James
Hooley, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Bradley, Tom
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Price, William (Rugby)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, East)
Probert, Arthur


Brooks, Edwin
Howell Denis (Small Heath)
Rankin, John


Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Howie, W.
Rees, Merlyn


Brown, Rt. Hn, George (Belper)
Hoy, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Hunter, Adam
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hynd, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rose, Paul


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jeger,Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Coe, Denis
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sheldon, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Silverman, Julius


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Skeffington, Arthur


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Joseph


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Small, William


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Snow, Julian


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dell, Edmund
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan
Swingler, Stephen


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Dickens, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Thornton, Ernest



Lyon, Alexander W. (York)



Dunn, James A.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
McBride, Neil
Urwin, T. W.


Dunwoody, Mr. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McCann, John
Varley, Eric G.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Macdonald, A. H.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Edelman, Maurice
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wallace, George


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackie, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ellis, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Weitzman, David


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wellbeloved, James


Evan, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Weils, William (Walsall, N.)


Ewing, Mr. Winifred
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Whitlock, William


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu,J.P.W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Manuel, Archie
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mapp, Charles
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marks, Kenneth
Winnick, David


Ford, Ben
Mendelson, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Woof, Robert


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce



Freeson, Reginald
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Gardner, Tony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Garrett, W. E.
Molloy, William

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Lubbock: I am sorry to detain the Committee at this hour, but I have a question to raise which would have been inappropriate on the Amendments. Hon. Members may have noted that I put down an Amendment to defer the coming into operation of the Clause until
the day after the ordinary day of election of councillors in 1970".
As has been said, a good number of councillors on authorities in various parts of the United Kingdom will not be able to stand again as a result of the Clause, but, if we were to delay its implementation until after the reports of the Royal Commissions on Local Government in England and in Scotland have been received, the difficulties to which hon. Members have referred in the two previous debates would no longer apply.
We can already see this happening in various parts of the country where boundary changes have been effected. I happen to know of one case, as it is mentioned in a letter which I received this morning from the town clerk of the London Borough of Bromley. This is the example of Wolverhampton, to which attention has been drawn by the Association of Municipal Corporations, where before the recent boundary extensions nine out of the 60 members of the Council would have been lost because of the Clause but where, taking into account the extended boundaries, the loss would be only one member out of the 60.
It is also relevant that many local authorities have very illogical boundaries. Under the present distribution of boundaries, people living just outside local authority areas would not be able to stand as candidates for local authority elections inside them.
Portsmouth was mentioned. It is obvious that somebody who has moved out of the city must still be very interested in its affairs if he has children at school there. He does not cease to have any connection with the city when he moves outside because of redevelopment.
In general, it is a good principle that people should live in the area they are trying to represent, because they are interested in the services such as education, which was one of the most important factors in the minds of the Government in introducing the Clause.
I want to make it possible for candidates still to represent authorities when they have moved outside their boundaries. I am not a prophet when I say that the Royal Commission on Local Government will lead to much larger local authorities than we have now. The City of Portsmouth will be surrounded by a hinterland which will all come under the same city region or regional council, and those who have moved outside the city will still be qualified after the recommendations of the Royal Commission have taken effect.
Therefore, I ask the Government to give the matter careful consideration. It was disappointing to me that my Amendment was not selected, but there is still an opportunity for the Home Secretary, on Report, to say that he will defer the coming into operation of the Clause until 1970, or such date as he thinks will give him enough time to implement the Royal Commission's decisions.

Mr. Montgomery: This is a very strange debate, because although the Government have won every Division all the best speeches have come from this side of the Committee, and the speeches from the other side have been abysmal, with the exception of that of the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot). He made a courageous speech in which he flayed his Front Bench for lack of foresight in trying to force the Clause through.
It is difficult to understand some arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite. Why do not the Government go all the way and say that all Members of Parliament must live in their constituencies? The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) said that people will go to the councillor in their street rather than to a councillor who lives outside their local authority's boundary. Is he advocating that councillors must stand only for the wards in which they live? We could go on indefinitely with all sorts of possibilities.
We know that the Government are trying to force the Clause through because they feel that they will attack Conservatives in local government. But it cuts both ways. We have heard that the leader of the Labour Party on the Greater London Council will be affected by the Clause.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) was once chairman of the Newcastle City Council Finance Committee, although he did not live in Newcastle. He was on the city council because, as a trade union organiser, he had an address in the city.
The difficulties of getting local government candidates, because their work is voluntary, have been pointed out. I recall the amount of time that I had to give up during my five years in local government.
The Government are trying to ensure that the businessman or shopkeeper who pays rates in a town, but does not live there, does not stand for the town council. That is entirely wrong. The argument of the Secretary of State for Scotland, that such people could stand for the council of the area in which they live, is not very good. Many of them have moved into rural areas and do not want to serve on rural district councils or parish councils. They are attracted by the idea of serving on a borough council or county borough council where there is more power and authority.
11.45 p.m.
If the Government are determined to prevent people with businesses and who pay rates in a town from standing for its council, what happens when a man has two residences? Supposing a man has a residence or accommodation address in the town where he has his business and a residence outside the town? I myself have two homes, one in Westminster and one in my constituency. At the next General Election, I can vote either for my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) or for myself. The chances are that I shall vote in Brierley Hill, because I think that my hon. Friend is perfectly safe and really does not need my vote. But the point is that I have a choice as to where to cast my vote.
How, therefore, do the Government classify "residence" for local election purposes? How will they decide which address a person may vote from? It will surely still be open to a businessman to say that he will maintain his address in the town where he has his business and use his vote there, keeping off the electoral role in the rural or urban area to which he has moved. If that is so, how

will the Government disprove that he is voting from the place where he spends most of his time? It will be extremely difficult.
If the Government are genuinely concerned with the future of local government, if they are anxious to encourage the best candidates we can get, they should drop this Clause, because it is a spiteful attempt to keep people of extremely good character out of local government.

Mr. Tilney: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery). My constituency démarches with Huyton. I am lucky enough to live in and represent Liverpool. But the Prime Minister, whenever there is an election, does not bother even to set up headquarters in Huyton. He lives and has his headquarters in Liverpool, at the Adelphi Hotel. It seems that there is to be one law for the Government and one law for local councils.
We on Mersey-side are "Balkanised". I hope that we shall ultimately get a Mersey-side council. Already, it is impossible for a person to know, north of the river, when he is leaving Liverpool and has reached Bootle or has crossed into Crosby, for example. The same applies on the south bank in going to Bebington, Birkenhead, or Wallasey.
It is inconceivable that the Government are so archaic in their thinking that they are to deny the right to continue serving Liverpool to nine members of Liverpool City Council. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Education Committee are among them. One of them is the former Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale, Mr. Norman Pannell, who for years warned the House of the dangers of too great a rate of immigration at a time when the Labour Party was still soporific in its thinking and sunk in its own residential torpor.
What happens when boundaries are changed? The Secretary of State for Scotland will say, no doubt, "Get another residence". The boundaries of local government will not remain static for ever. If a boundary is moved, is the chairman of the county council concerned to cease being chairman at once if he finds his home suddenly outside the new boundary? This is an example of the archaic, cloth-capped thinking of the Government.

Mr. John Peyton: The presence of the Home Secretary to explain this rather discreditable Clause is slightly more novel than it is welcome. I cannot understand why this provision should be applied to local councillors and not to Members of Parliament. The poverty of the speeches from the Government Front Bench has done nothing to explain these points. The only justification is that it is dirty gerrymandering, and the Home Secretary knows it very well. It is exactly on all fours with the cheating that they committed over the London boroughs.
My last point is to the country, rather than to the party opposite—rump as it is. The country at least should take warning from cheating such as this, because a discredited Administration might yet see the only hope of their salvation by introducing a provision for a seven-year Parliament.

Mr. Hogg: I would like to say a word to the right hon. Gentleman before he replies. He was not present during the earlier debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I did not see him in the Chamber, but I am delighted to hear that he may have been somewhere below the fire extinguisher.
Please, let the right hon. Gentleman withdraw this thoroughly disreputable Clause, which ought never to have been included in the Bill. The trouncing that the Government have had in debate this evening, and the pitiful show they have made in the Lobby, should give them warning that this sort of thing simply will not go over with the electorate. The right hon. Gentleman did not reply to the earlier debate because I believe that he was ashamed to do so. I hope that now he will be man enough to take this Clause back, if not now, at least for the Report stage.

Mr. Caliaghan: We are so used to the speeches of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that I fear that he will have to change his style if he is to make any impression on us. If he would sometimes have a little light and shade, we might take more seriously what he has to say. We know exactly the kind of attack he will make when he gets up, and it really does not wash.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) raised a serious point, and I

am sorry that his Amendment was not called. If it had been, I would have had to explain that it would not meet the point that he wanted to meet, if that is any consolation to him. The House, having decided that the non-resident qualification shall be abolished by rejecting the Amendment, will come, in Clause 27 (1), to the date of operation, and it is the Government's intention that it shall have effect with respect to the Register of Electors to be published in 1970. If it is to have effect, the only question is whether we should have a period of delay of two or five years.
I would have thought, on balance, that the local constituencies and organisations will want to get ahead with choosing new candidates, finding who it is they want, if people are to drop out. I cannot believe that in the City of Liverpool, with a population of 750,000, they are to be entirely bereft of their city fathers because eight out of 22 gentlemen are not able to stand unless they move their residences. If that is the opinion of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) I doubt whether the citizens of Liverpool will agree with him.
The way in which the hon. Member poured scorn on the fact that the Prime Minister establishes his headquarters in the Adelphi, and from the tone in which he said it, one would imagine that we were talking about a den of sin. I thought that it was a very good hotel. If the hon. Member wants to indicate to the citizens of Liverpool that he does not think much of that hotel, it is for him to say. The rest of us believe that the Adelphi is a perfectly good, reputable hotel, and I am glad to spring to the defence of the reputation of that hotel against the vicious, unprincipled, below-the-belt attacks by the hon. Member. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the right hon. Gentleman?"] The headquarters of my local Conservative Party have been outside my constituency ever since I have been a Member. I would not care to say for what unprincipled or vicious cause they chose to have their headquarters outside the constituency. It is a poor argument.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) was unable to decide what we are doing. Either we are an unprincipled set of power-drunk maniacs or, alternatively, we are trying to get rid


of our own friends on the councils. The hon. Gentleman was telling me that we were doing this to get rid of those valuable Conservatives who now serve on the councils and, at the same time, he was weeping crocodile tears because, he says, the Labour leader of the G.L.C. minority group and the former chairman of the Newcastle City Council will go.
The hon. Member cannot have it both ways; or, I suppose he can, since that is what Conservatives try to do all the time. Either we are dealing a savage blow at our own people, or trying to get rid of the Tories; or it may be that we think the simple proposition, one man, one vote, the man living in the place in which he votes, is right.
It is at least conceivable that that could be the reason for putting the Clause forward—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) would stop shouting and take his hands out of his pockets. It is conceivable that that is the reason, and it is the reason. There is a difference of opinion. The Conservatives believe that it does not matter if a person works outside the area in which he resides provided he is not a limited company. Only the ratepayers who are not limited companies are to enjoy the franchise, as I understand the Conservative approach.
To take an illustration, the Guest Keen Iron and Steel Company, in Cardiff, or the Steel Company of Wales, in Port Talbot, have at least as big an interest in the fortunes of the city as the local shopkeeper who lives outside the city. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] That may well be the case, but it is not the case which the Conservatives have put forward. The case which they have put forward is that only a limited company shall have the vote. Let there at least be some consistency in their backsliding. I do not like them to be backsliding on one thing and progressive on another.
The simple issue here is that either a person lives and votes in the same area, or there is this hang-over from the past. The Clause is clearing up that hang-over. Had the Conservatives been in power, they would probably have introduced the same Clause that I am introducing this evening.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill was a little too scornful about rural and urban district councils. He said that people do not want to serve on rural or on urban district councils because the power is in the boroughs. Many worth-while functions are performed by rural district councils, and many people are ready and anxious to serve on them. If a person who wishes to serve lives in a rural or district council area, that is where he should serve; if he lives in a borough, that is where he should serve. It is not a heinous principle to advance that residence is the basis of vote and representation. That is the simple principle.
The hon. Member has asked me what happens when a person has two residences. That is the same as now; that is to say, they will be able to select if the residences are genuine residences. That is a matter of fact, and it would be a matter of fact for it to be determined in that way. But, just as he is able to choose now, so he will be able to choose in future if he has two residences of that sort.
12 midnight
As to whether Members of Parliament should live in their constituencies, I do not think that hon. Gentlemen are putting that forward seriously. If they are, there will be a substantial thinning-out on the benches opposite. But, assuming for the moment that it is not part of the great party exercise in which they have engaged this evening, with considerable fun all round, it is fair to say that Parliament has functions to perform which lie outside the boundaries of each of the constituencies that we represent. That being so, there is a case for saying that Members of Parliament should not necessarily reside in their own constituencies.
I know many hon. Members whose attention to their constituencies is quite as great, although they live outside them, as that of others who reside in them—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite should try to absorb two consecutive sentences at once, if they can. My first was that Members of Parliament have duties to fulfil outside their constituencies. That is the whole and major difference between the two.
The Committee has taken a decision on the major issue of principle. I understand that the Opposition now wish to


come to a conclusion on the Clause as a whole. I hope that my hon. Friends will vote for the Clause, recognising that the Opposition have put up a spurious example of manufactured hate and re-

Division No. 34.]
AYES
[12.02 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Albu, Austin
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gardner, Tony
Mallalieu.J.P.W.(Huddersfield.E.)


Alldritt, Walter
Garrett, W. E.
Manuel, Archie


Allen, Scholefield
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mapp, Charles


Anderson, Donald
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marks, Kenneth


Armstrong, Ernest
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mendelson, John


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Gregory, Arnold
Mikardo, Ian


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Millan Bruce


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Barnett, Joel
Hamling, William
Mitchell, R. C. ((S'th'pton, Test)


Beaney, Alan
Hannan, William
Molloy, William


Bence, Cyril
Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bishop, E. S.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Blackburn, F.
Haseldine, Norman
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hazell, Bert
Moyle, Roland


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Booth, Albert
Henig, Stanley
Murray, Albert


Boston, Terence
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oakes, Gordon


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hilton, W. S.
O'Malley, Brian


Boyden, James
Hooley, Frank
Orbach, Maurice


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Horner, John
Orme, Stanley


Bradley, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Brooks, Edwin
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howie, W.
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hoy, James
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, R. V. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Huckfield, Leslie
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pentland, Norman


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hynd, John
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Cant, R. B.
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Price, William (Rugby)


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh]
Probert, Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rankin, John


Coe, Denis
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rees, Merlyn


Coleman, Donald
Jeger,Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richard, Ivor


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones.Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Judd, Frank
Rose, Paul


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kenyon, Clifford
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sheldon, Robert


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lawson, George
Short, Mrs. René e (W'hampton.N.E.)


Dickens, James
Ledger, Ron
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunn, James A.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan
Skeffington, Arthur


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Slater, Joseph


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Snow, Julian


Edelman, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ellis, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McCann, John
Swingler, Stephen


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Macdonald, A. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Faulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Fernyhough, E.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Thornton. Ernest


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackie, John
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Maclennan, Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Ford, Ben
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley


Forrester, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fraser, John (Norwood)

Wallace, George

sentment against a Clause which they themselves would have introduced.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 229, Noes 216.

Watkins, David (Consett)
Whitlock, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Woof, Robert


Weitzman, David
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)



Wellbeloved, James
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Whitaker, Ben
Winnick, David
Mr. Ioan L. Evans




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodhew, Victor
Nott, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gower, Raymond
Onslow, Cranley


Astor, John
Grant, Anthony
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Awdry, Daniel
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grieve, Percy
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Criffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Balniel, Lord
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peel, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Peyton, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pink, R. Bonner


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harrison, Col. Sir Hat-wood (Eye)
Pounder, Rafton


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Prior, J. M. L.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hay, John
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Blaker, Peter
Heseltine, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Higgins, Terence L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Body, Richard
Hiley, Joseph
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hill, J. E. B.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Braine, Bernard
Hooson, Emlyn
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brewis, John
Hordern, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Hornby, Richard
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hunt, John
Scott, Nicholas


Bryan, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buchanan.Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharples, Richard


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Burden, F. A.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Silvester, Frederick


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jopling, Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Carlisle, Mark
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Speed, Keith


Channon, H. P. G.
Kimball, Marcus
Stainton, Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Clark, Henry
Kirk, Peter
Stodart, Anthony


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Tapsell, Peter


Corfield, F. V.
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Costain, A. P.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Taylor,Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lane, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crouch, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Teeling, Sir William


Crowder, F. P.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Temple, John M.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dalkeith, Earl of
Longden, Gilbert
Tilney, John


Dance, James




d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Loveys, W. H.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dean, Paul
Lubbock, Eric
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W F. (Ashford)
MacArthur, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Doughty, Charles
McNair-Wilson. Patrick
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Drayson, G. B.
Maddan, Martin
Wall, Patrick


Eden, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Weatherill, Bernard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Webster, David


Elliott,R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Marten, Neil
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Emery, Peter
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farr, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fisher, Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Woodnutt, Mark


Foster, Sir John
Montgomery, Fergus
Worsley, Marcus


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
More, Jasper
Wright, Esmond


Gibson-Watt, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wylie, N. R.


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Glover, Sir Douglas
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn, Sir Richard
Neave, Airey
Mr. Anthony Royle and


Goodhart, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Hector Monro.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move.
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
As it would be appropriate for the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) to return to the grouse moors, I would not like to keep him from them any longer.

Mr. Hogg: I concur in the right hon. Gentleman's advice, though I doubt whether the grouse moors will see many of my right hon. Friends tonight, in December.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

EDUCATION (AUTISTIC CHILDREN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

12.14 a.m.

Mr. Edwin Brooks: The recent controversy and distress which were caused by an inept and sensational film are proof of the ignorance which still surrounds the subject of mental illness. And nowhere can foolish words—such as the glib term "ineducable"—cause more anxiety and pain than in the family tragedies provoked by the mentally afflicted child.
I feel obliged, therefore, to preface my remarks with a brief definition of terms, particularly as there is still widespread public confusion over an illness, or group of related illnesses, which was first defined in the medical literature at least as long ago as 1912. The two essential symptoms of the autistic child are lack of responsiveness to people—including parents—and insistence on the preservation of sameness. The child seems to be switched off, to inhabit a perpetual dreamworld.
As Dr. Gerald O'Gorman wrote in 1967:
There is much debate and not a little confusion about the delineation of autism, mostly because nobody has yet been able to produce, an acceptable analysis of the nature of the condition.
Some authorities,
he states,
regard it as an organic disease of the central nervous system.

In their report "Innocents at Risk" published by the National Society for Autistic Children on the 26th November last, we read that the theory
now most commonly held by specialists in the subject is that the development of some parts of the brain is very severely delayed".
But whatever the causal factors, which only further research can clarify, it is clear, as Dr. O'Gorman says, that
autistic children are exceedingly difficult to treat or to educate; they arouse severe anxieties and emotional strain in their families and in those who care for them.
Perhaps the most poignant aspect of this illness, is that the child's dissociation from the real world—in terms of speech and communication notably—is bound to inhibit brain development at critical stages of growth. Nevertheless, it has been proved that a significant proportion of autistic children can be saved from a lifetime of dependency and institutional existence; there are well attested cases of such children succeeding at "O" levels, and even entering university. The essential condition of success lies in the speed and efficacy of the assessment and subsequent educational provision, and here the picture is far from satisftactory, particularly outside the south-east of the country.
It might be useful at this stage to stress the scale of the problem, which is seldom appreciated by the public, or perhaps even by Members of this House. From results obtained in a careful survey by the Medical Research Council, it seems that the incidence of autism is as much as 4 per 10,000 of the school population, which would mean that there are about 3,050 autistic children in England and Wales alone. This is more than twice the number of blind children, and almost the same as the 3,356 deaf children of school age in England and Wales. As Dr. O'Gorman states,
childhood autism is no longer thought to be an excessively rare condition.
Against this background, may I turn to the North-west and Wirral, where my constituency lies. According to figures supplied to me in a Written Answer answered on 14th October, there are 15 autistic children under the age of 16 living in the peninsula, of whom 13 are of school age, and of these 10 are receiving special education. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these figures, but I am sure all official figures need refining. For example, it is surely surprising that in


Wirral, with a total population of under half a million, there are 15 autistic children, yet in Liverpool near by, with a population more than half as big again, I understand from an article in the Liverpool Daily Post of 27th last month, there is only one child so designated.
I suspect—and I speak with some nine years experience as a member of the Birkenhead Education Committee—that as far as mental illness is concerned, we often see no more than the tip of the iceberg. Parents are naturally torn by feelings of guilt and fear, and many teachers who are bravely coping with oversize primary classes are ill-equipped to distinguish the truly mentally sick child from the naughty and inadequately disciplined one.
We need far more effective child guidance facilities in general, and if tonight I concentrate solely on one of the more extreme forms of mental disorder, I hope that this will not expose me to any accusations of complacency about the wider situation. However, it is by highlighting the inadequacies, as I see them, in dealing with the particular problem of autism, that one can indicate the varied responsibilities which are shortly to devolve upon my hon. Friend's Department of State in the forthcoming and long overdue reallocation of responsibility for the education of mentally handicapped children in England and Wales.
In passing, I hope my hon. Friend will look into the present arrangements under the Education Act, 1944, whereby local authorities are asked, and have a statutory requirement, to undertake responsibilities towards certain categories of disability.
The case of Shaun Brady, an eleven-year-old boy who lives in Wirral, deserves far more time and attention than I have available in this brief debate, but I shall try to summarise his experiences, first related to me by his father more than two years ago. At the age of five he attended a primary school in Wallasey, but had to leave after a few weeks because of his difficult behaviour.
He was then to attend, for about a year, child guidance clinics in Wallasey and Liverpool, and also saw a specialist at nearby Southport. The growing sus-

picion that he was autistic was finally confirmed when he concluded twelve months' further treatment with a child consultant at Clatterbridge Hospital in my constituency. He also spent some time at Alder Hay Children's Hospital, Liverpool, for observation and treatment.
It would be unfair therefore, to say that he was not provided with expert assessment, and I know of the interest and deep concern which Shaun's illness has aroused among the medical experts on Merseyside. Nevertheless, from the age of seven onwards, he has had no specialist education appropriate to his particular disability; true, he spent 18 months at a Spastic School in Birkenhead—a place provided for him, incidentally, as a result of the generosity of the Spastic Society—but the autistic child is not suffering from the same disorder as the spastic child, and, perhaps, understandably, this experiment prove unsatisfactory.
Mr. and Mrs. Brady, who have three other younger children, all of whom are perfectly normal, now found themselves with the distressing situation that their boy could not be found any suitable place locally. Following reassessment in 1967, the local education authority, Wallasey were clear that
Shaun should be admitted to a class or centre for autistic children",
yet, despite application having been made to all neighbouring local authorities, and despite the help of the Department of Education and Science having been sought, it was found impossible to place him locally.
As Wallasey rightly said, in a statement issued on the 31st October last, Shaun
 requires full assessment and treatment in either a hospital with appropriate educational facilities or in a small teaching unit with other similar children and with a generous staffing of specialist teachers.
But this could not be done, and eventually Mr. and Mrs. Brady decided to draw attention to their son's plight by refusing to pay rates to the local authority. Personally, I would like to think that I would have the guts to do the same in a similar situation. Mr. Brady, who is a building labourer, endured distraint upon his furniture and effects, and had much of his furniture eventually removed by bailiffs.
I can only say that I find this sort of passive resistance in a good cause far more inspiring than the mindless hooliganism which afflicts some of those who started life with all the educational advantages, and if ever we do have an adequate assessment and teaching unit in Wirral it should be called the Shaun Brady centre.
Following my intervention this summer in the matter, I heard from my right hon. Friend, the then Minister of Health, on 31st July, but, in response to my inquiries about Shaun's admission to the Cranage Hall Hospital in Cheshire for a three month period of assessment, I was told that, in view of the long waiting list for admission the Minister could hold out little hope for Shaun in the near future. Today, half a year later, Shaun has still not been able to enter Cranage Hall.
The pressure on available resources is also illustrated by the normal four-year waiting period for admission to the Rudolf Steiner School at Aberdeen, and this possibility—which was referred to in a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education dated 4th October—seems unlikely to materialise for Shaun in less than two years.
This then, is the history of Shaun Brady, but I could easily have mentioned the names of other children in Wirral and in the North-West, whose parents have discussed their problem with me. Indeed, as a result of the concern felt by these parents, the past few weeks have seen the formation of the Wirral Society for Autistic Children, and it is proposed to start a class led by a qualified teacher and member, which will cater for three children at present receiving no help. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will use his good offices to see if any assistance can be given, notably in terms of finding suitable accommodation for these classes, and I would like to suggest that the Department might well earmark an annual grant to give launching aid to such examples of voluntary initiative in general.
Despite the heart-warming examples of parental initiative, the House and the Government must surely recognise their responsibilities, and I come to some specific proposals for helping autistic children which have been made by the various local authorities.
Indeed, all three major authorities—Birkenhead, Wallasey and Cheshire—have shown in recent months, and longer, a commendable interest in the problem of the autistic child, and if my hon. Friend will only agree to look seriously into their detailed proposals, I feel confident that he will see the merits of their case, not least on financial grounds. If, by neglect, we allow a single child to succumb to the autistic condition throughout adulthood, the cost to the State will prove far greater than the cost of suitable help applied in those crucial early years.
Cheshire and Wallasey have both kindly written to me today, despite extremely short notice, with up-to-date accounts of their views and plans, and I shall be sending these letters to my hon. Friend for his more leisured consideration. To pick out the main points, Cheshire has already submitted a proposal to the Department to build a residential diagnostic and educational unit for 30 autistic and non-communicating children as part of its 1970–71 building programme. However, this proposal has not been agreed by the Department, and I can only hope that better sense will be shown when the project is resubmitted for the 1971–72 programme. The Director informs me:
In the meantime, Cheshire have been looking for existing premises which might prove suitable for conversion … at least on a day-to-day basis. The former Civil Defence premises at Hinderton Road, Neston, have been examined and it is felt that they could be converted as a Minor Works project.
The present use of these premises will lapse at the end of the spring term 1969, and £4,000 has been allocated for 1969–70 to effect the conversion. If work can begin, as is hoped, immediately after Easter next year, the premises
… could possibly be taken into use as a day centre for autistic children in the Wirral by September next year.
About 30 children could be accommodated there, and there is likely to be room for Wallasey and Birkenhead children in addition to Cheshire children, which is clearly sensible since the consultants work in regional hospital areas.
The Director stresses, however, that such welcome provision of day facilities would in no way reduce the urgent need for a residential unit, and I hope that my hon. Friend will affirm that this is


his view, too. An alternative and valuable proposal, which I have earlier supported in correspondence with the Ministry of Health, was put forward some time ago by Dr. David Zausmer, consultant child psychiastrist at Clatter-bridge Hospital. He planned a two-class, two-teacher day unit with an under-five play group in charge of a supervisor for 16 children between the ages of two and 11.
This was later proposed in the form of a £5,000 prefabricated building, but I was informed in July that although the Liverpool Regional Hospital Board had accepted this proposal in principle, it had so far been unable to find a place for it in its capital programme. I hope that my hon. Friend will take a searching look at this scheme, perhaps in its latest variant, which would mean a demountable structure at the Pensby Children's wing.
Facilities for expert assessment from the age of two onwards might mean a saving of tens of thousands of £s by enabling youngsters to surmount the autistic hurdle in childhood—and £5,000 is equivalent to an hour's expenditure on the Concorde project, and in terms of human suffering and human values I have no doubt where my priorities would lie.
I would not wish to close without praising the enlightened approach of the Birkenhead Director of Education to the needs of the mentally handicapped, and it is most welcome news that a teacher at Pilgrim Street School in Birkenhead is receiving encouragement to use her classroom in the evenings and on Saturdays to help autistics. The Director of Education at Wallasey has also shown great interest in the work of the newly formed Wirral Parents' Society, and has pledged full support. In fact, the tide is flowing at last in the right direction and I hope my hon. Friend will ensure that his Department functions as a surf rider, and not as King Canute.
We are dealing with a national problem, for it is estimated that only 150 children out of a total of over 3,000 autistics are receiving the facilities they need. Only three units exist outside the south-east—where 17 of the 20 specialist units in the country are found—and time

is not on the side of the children lacking such facilities.
Childhood is either a time of growth, or it becomes endless, and if the Department will only give a lead we can enable many hundreds of children to come out of that secret world of solitary confinement to which they are unnecessarily sentenced by the indifference of those born more fortunate.

12.30 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): I am sure the House is very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) for raising this matter. I think this is the first time that there has been an Adjournment debate on this subject. We in the Department of Education, especially since the Prime Minister announced only the other day that we were to take over responsibility for the education of all handicapped children, which previously had been the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, are glad of the opportunity which this debate creates to focus attention upon these extremely unfortunate children.
The term "autistic children" is fairly new in educational jargon. I am delighted, as I am sure that my hon. Friend is, that there has been more activity in Cheshire in this field than in most other places in the country. This is to the credit of Cheshire. It is also to the credit of Mr. Brady that he took steps to focus attention on the child for whom he had parental responsibility and great devotion. Dr. Kanner of Illinois started to call attention to these unfortunate children in the mid-forties and continued a dialogue about them in the fifties.
In 1961 a working party of psychiatrists, chaired by Dr. Mildred Creak, drew up a list of nine symptoms of autism. These were: gross and sustained impairment of mental relationships with people; apparent unawareness of his own personal identity to a degree inappropriate to his age; pathological preoccupation with objects without regard to their normal functions; sustained resistance to change in environment; abnormal perceptual experience—sometimes mani fested as apparent deafness and some times as excessive sensitivity to sounds; excessive and seemingly illogical anxiety; no acquisition of speech or loss of speech


or failure to develop beyond a certain stage; distorted patterns of movement—sometimes over-active, sometimes immobile—and with bizarre movements such as rocking or head banging; serious mental retardation—but with isolated areas of normal or even exceptional skill.
It is worth outlining this condition in great detail because it shows the difficulty of diagnosis in these cases. Most of these children have normally been regarded with numbers of other children as psychotics. After all these developments, in 1964 my Department convened a conference which was attended by psychiatrists, psychologists and others concerned with special education to discuss the educational needs of pschotic children.
The main conclusions of the conference were that a good knowledge of the development of normal children was in the teacher, that additional training at that stage could be obtained only by working with these children, and that the personality of the teacher was probably more important than paper qualifications. There are difficulties in diagnosis and also in finding teachers of the right bent and aptitude to take on this work. A staffing ratio approaching one adult—whether teacher, child care worker or therapist—to two or three children was desirable to facilitate the establishment of communication with them. Such was the weight of the problem involved in the responsibility for these children and their education.
I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend said about the numbers of autistic children in this country. Investigations in Aberdeen and Middlesex, which we used to reach conclusions, show that there is about one in 3,000 who may be autistic, which would give the number my hon. Friend mentioned of about 2,500 to 3,000 children. Of these, about half would be severely subnormal.
There are 32 units, catering mainly for psychotic and autistic children. I will not go into details about where these are, except to say that most of them are in the Greater London Area, which is another matter of concern.
It is obvious from what I have said that we feel that much more research is needed into the problem. Not the least

part of my gratitude to my hon. Friend arises because this debate enables me to say that we are co-operating with a study made by Dr. Rutter of the Maudsley Hospital Institute of Psychiatry on the special educational treatment of autistic children, and we are paying 75 per cent. of the cost of this piece of research, so important do we believe it to be. The project started in the autumn of 1966 and will run for five years, but we hope that after three years it will be possible to draw some preliminary conclusions which will be useful in the application of our new duties.
I turn from that general position to provision in the Wirral area and to the case of Shaun Brady. I shall be obliged if my hon. Friend will send me the correspondence to which he referred from the local authorities in his constituency. I do not dispute anything that my hon. Friend said the case history of Shaun Brady, and therefore I do not have to go over it again. However, I can give my hon. Friend more satisfactory news than he has known hitherto, which I am sure he will be delighted to relay to Mr. Brady.
The Cranage Hall Autistic Unit, which already provides residential and some teaching facilities for ten autistic children, is in the process of creating new buildings to take more children. I am informed today that the up-to-date position, which I sought for the benefit of my hon. Friend and the House, is that new wards already furnished, I believe, which will provide an additional 10 or 12 beds in Wirral in Cheshire, should be ready early in the New Year. I am confident that there is every hope of getting Shaun Brady into that unit within the next few months, early in the New Year. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted with this information.
Although we found it not possible to proceed with the Cheshire project, for 30 children in the 1970–71 building programme, the Cheshire local authority is proposing to create a unit for 12 children at Neston in former Civil Defence premises at present being used for ordinary school classes. Obviously this will have a significant effect. The reason we were not able to include the project of Cheshire for a unit of 30 children was two-fold. There was the difficulty


all the time of the schoolbuilding programme, with which the House will be familiar. This consideration weighed even more heavily in this case because of our doubt as to whether we should proceed with large units of 30, in view of the high staffing-child ratio I have mentioned and the belief among the professional advisers in my Department that children with such severe handicaps as these should be treated in much smaller units. Therefore, my professional advisers and I are delighted to know that the new project going forward for Neston is for a unit for 12 children, which we think would probably be more satisfactory.
We would not want to draw hard and fast lines in our thinking until the results of the research in which we are involved become apparent to the educational world and to my Department.

Mr. Brooks: I am grateful for this very welcome news, but do not some of the children involved need to have residential facilities rather than simply day facilities as is proposed in the Neston project?

Mr. Howell: There has to be a combination of day and residential provi sion. One accepts that without hesitation, but I think that the over-riding consideration here, once that point is conceded, is the attempt to keep numbers down to manageable proportions so that something really significant can be achieved in the life of the individual pupil.
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising the question of the Education Act, 1944, and pointing out that it was drawn far too narrowly. It lays down specific cases of handicap to which local education authorities have to have regard, but, because we knew so little about this problem at that time, autistic children are not included.
As the House knows, we are at present engaged in rethinking the whole of our education policy with a view to a new Education Act. I give an undertaking to my hon. Friend that we shall look at this point closely. It may well be that we ought not to define handicaps too specifically in the next Act lest there be a danger that the results of further developments hereafter, as happened

with autistic children, are excluded. I hope that it will be possible to define or refer to handicaps in relation to education in that sense.
As regards the numbers in the Wirral, although my hon. Friend was a little sceptical about the answer which we gave, I confirm that there are, in fact, 15 children under the age of 16 who are known as autistic. My hon. Friend makes a fair point about Liverpool having only one. I think that that shows that some people take their diagnostic duties rather more enthusiastically than others do. We hope that there will be an improvement over the whole field.
I understand that Shaun Brady is the only one of the 15 in the Wirral not at present receiving education in a school or a hospital where educational facilities are available. I think that there is one child receiving home tuition and awaiting a place at Rudolf Steiner school. I have nothing to add on that matter.
I reiterate what I said at the outset, that we are grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter in debate. It is important that there should be public light and discussion on handicaps of this sort. Those of us who are engaged in the education service feel passionately about our responsibilities for the education of handicapped children, probably more passionately than we do about most other sections of education, because we know not only that the children will face a very difficult life but the burdens and responsibilities of their parents must always be borne very much in mind. It was for that reason about all that we were delighted in the Department of Education and Science that the Government, as the Prime Minister announced, decided that no child in the future should be written off as incapable of receiving education—"ineducable" is the awful jargon expression. As soon as we can pass the legislation through the House therefore, and responsibility passes from the Department of Health and Social Security to the Department of Education and Science, we shall have done something which, I believe, will have the support of educationists throughout the whole country.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to One o'clock.